Back
1955 Supreme(Gau) 33
Manipur High Court
BRIJ NARAIN, J.
Rabindra Kumar Purakayastha
Versus
Forest Officer, Govt. of Manipur
Civil Misc. Appln. No.11 of 1955
Decided On : 20-06-1955
S. Roy with A.K. Biswas, instructed by R. M. Kar Solicitor, for Petitioner; S.C. Bardhan Govt. Advocate, for Opposite Parties.
The Government's action in terminating the contract without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to show cause was a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - CONTRACT - BREACH - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - INFRINGEMENT - REMEDY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ADEQUACY - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the Government of Manipur for the operation of teak wood in a certain forest area. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as caution money and was issued a lease in respect of the said teak operation. The petitioner commenced work and felled a number of trees. However, the Government subsequently issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the forest area had been settled for teak operation by calling tenders and that the petitioner was prohibited from entering the forest. The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to recall the letter and allow him to carry out the teak operation in accordance with the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had acquired a property right in the lease granted to him by the Government and that the Government's action in terminating the contract without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to show cause was a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. The court also found that the petitioner did not have an equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy and that the remedy of a suit in a civil court would not be sufficient to protect his rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had acquired a property right in the lease granted to him by the Government? 2. Whether the Government's action in terminating the contract without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to show cause was a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the petitioner had an equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had acquired a property right in the lease granted to him by the Government. The court relied on the definition of property in Corpus Juris, Volume 73, p.136, which states that property includes "valuable rights and interests protected by law." The court also relied on the decision in Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Com. Ltd., AIR 1943 Bom 385 (J), in which it was held that unliquidated damages for breach of contract is property within S.69(3)(a), Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The court held that the Government's action in terminating the contract without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to show cause was a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. The court relied on the decision in Long Island Water Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, (1897) 166 US 685 at p.690 (M) and Lynch v. United States, (1934) 292 US 571 at p.579 (N), in which it was held that deprivation of property without compensation is a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3. The court held that the petitioner did not have an equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy. The court relied on the decision in Buddhu v. Municipal Board, Allahabad, AIR 1952 All 753 (FB) (Z3), in which it was held that where speedy decision is desirable petition can be entertained even though there is another remedy by way of suit.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Government to recall the letter terminating the contract and to allow the petitioner to carry out the teak operation in accordance with the agreement. The court also awarded the petitioner Rs.500/- as costs.
Shri Rabindra Kumar Purakayastha, son of late Rajendra Kumar Purakayastha, residing at Maxwell Bazar, Imphal has brought this petition against the Forest Officer, Government of Manipur, the State of Manipur and the Union of India as State Government for this part C State for obtaining a Writ of Mandamus calling upon the opposite parties to recall and cancel the letter dated 26-3-1955 and forbear from giving any effect to it and allow the petitioner to carry out the teak wood operation in the contracted forest situated in the Manipur Burma boundary outside the present forest reserve area of Yangowpokpi Loochao in the Burma border forest, in accordance with the agreement dated 29/30-12-1954 and the lease dated 24-2-1955.
The opposite parties have further been asked to forbear from interfering with the petitioners light to carry out the said teak operation and it has been prayed that they should be ordered to forthwith cancel and recall the tender notice No.43 dated 28-3-1955 and forbear from giving any effect whatsoever to the said tender notice and also to forbear from allowing any other person apart from the petitioner the said teak operation in the said contracted forest for a period of 3 years with effect from 1-3-1955.
2. According to the petitioner on or about 29/30-12-1954 respondent 1 acting on behalf of the Government of Manipur and/or respondent 2 acting through the respondent 1 agreed to allow the petitioner to kill and fell trees in the forest situated in the Manipur Burma boundary outside the present reserve forest area of Yangowpokpl Locchao in the Burma border forest for a period of 3 years on conditions that a formal lease in respect of the said teak operation would be issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent 1 and/or respondent 2 on production of the Treasury Chalan showing the deposit by the petitioner of a sum of Rs.1000/- as caution money pledged in the name of respondent 1 which was to be refunded to the petitioner after the expiry of the said period of 3 years without any interest.
The petitioner was to pay to the respondent 1 and/or 2 for the said teak operation royalty at the rate to be fixed by the respondents from time to time as well as a monopoly fee at the rate of annas -/2/- per rupee on the amount of the said royalty, and a letter dated 30-12-1954 Annexture A was issued by the respondent 1 acting for and on behalf of the respondent 2 in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner deposited the said sum of Rs.1000/- in Imphal Treasury as caution money in the name of respondent 1 oh 22-2-1955 and forwarded the treasury chalan to the respondent 1 toy a letter dated 22-2-1955 Annexture B. Subsequently on 24-2-1955 on production of the said chalan by the petitioner-respondent 1 and/or 2 duly executed a lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said teak operation.
In part performance of the aforesaid agreement of lease, respondent 1 caused 3628 trees in the contracted forest to be marked to enable the petitioner to kill and fell the same and he actually killed 3559 trees and fell another G9 trees in the said contracted forest. But on his return to Imphal from the said forest on 30-3-1955 he received the letter dated 28-3-1955 to the following effect:
"Office of the Forest Officer, Manipur Government.
Memo. No.17-R.F./5256.
Imphal, the 26th March 1955, Shri Rabindra Kumar Purakayastha,
C/o Narendra Kishore Kar and Gyanendra Kishore Kar.
Maxwell Bazar, Imphal.
Subject: Teak Operation.
It has been informed by a Govt. order to settle Burniah border forest for teak operation by caning tenders. Thereiore the caution money deposited by you will be refunded and the said forest area will be settled by calling tenders from intending workers; until and unless, the said forest be settled with any contractor, nobody can enter the forest for teak operation.
Sd/- Illegible.
25-3-55
Forest Officer,
Government of Manipur.
Imphal, the March, 55.
Copy to:-
Forester, Pallel for information, causing service to Kaoindra
