Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 178
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
M/s Borduria Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Ltd. And Anr - Respondent
WP(C) 397 / 2012
Decided On : 07-03-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr Tony Pertin, MR.O Saroh, U Bori, MrK Saxena
For the Respondent: Mr D Kamduk, GA, MrK Jini, Mr T Gadi , Mr.D Loyi, B Picha
IMPORTANT POINT
The corporation, acting as an agent of the government, is entitled to recover dues under the BPDR Act as government dues.
Headnote:
(A) Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 - Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891 - The petitioner, a lessee of a timber company, contested a recovery order for dues claimed by the government and a corporation. The Deputy Commissioner ruled the corporation could not recover dues under the BPDR Act, leading to an appeal. The appellate authority reversed this, confirming the corporation's right to recover dues as government dues. (Paras 3 , 20 , 23 )
(B) Jurisdiction of BPDR Act - The court affirmed that the BPDR Act applies to government dues, and the corporation acted as an agent of the government in revenue collection. (Paras 22 , 23 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was involved in timber operations and disputed the dues claimed by the government and a corporation under the BPDR Act following a series of legal proceedings. (Paras 1 - 3 )
Findings of Court:
The appellate authority's decision to allow the corporation's claim was upheld, affirming their right to recover dues under the BPDR Act. (Paras 20 , 23 )
Issues: The court addressed whether the corporation could recover dues under the BPDR Act and the nature of the dues as government dues. (Paras 20 , 22 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the corporation was entitled to recover dues as government dues under the BPDR Act, rejecting the petitioner's claims regarding the corporation's status. (Paras 22 , 23 )
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an Order dated 26.10.2012, passed by the Divisional Commissioner (East), Government of Arunachal Pradesh in Bakijai Appeal No. 01/2011.
3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:-
The petitioner, in the writ petition has projected that it is a lessee of M/s Nocte Timber Company, N.T.C. Tirap. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Forest as well as the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Limited (APFCL) had entered into separate agreements with the M/s Nocte Timber Company for extraction of Timber from Borduria area of Tirap District. The petitioner company, as the lessee of M/s Nocte Timber Company had carried out the work and was to pay the revenue to the Government of Arunachal, Department of Forest as well the APFCL for operation of Timber business. The dues receivable from the petitioner in connection with the Timber operation carried out by it, not being cleared, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Deomali Forest Division, Tirap District had in the year 2000, made a requisition under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act , 1913 (herein after referred as the BPDR Act) as a 'Certificate holder’ to the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, for issuing certificate against the petitioner company and four others, including the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 Corporation for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,11,71,402/ of the year 1999 being Government dues as cost and charges penalty imposed by the High Power Committee, North Eastern Region in pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said requisition was transferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Deomali for disposal and was registered as Case No. JUD/BC/NTC/2000.
During the pendency of the said case, the Divisional Manager of the respondent no. 1 Corporation filed a petition before the Court of the Certificate Officer with a prayer to implead the respondent no. 1 Corporation as a Certificate holder together with the Divisional Forest Officer instead of as a Certificate debtor.
It is seen that the respondent no. 1 Corporation was thereafter, impleaded as a Certificate holder no. 2 in the said case vide an order dated 24.01.2006.
The Certificate Officer framed two issues for consideration in the case so registered before him. The issues so framed were (i), whether objection of the Certificate debtor is maintainable in law and (ii), whether the Certificate debtor is liable to pay the amount as claimed in the certificate.
During the pendency of the said proceeding and before the said issue could be decided, the Divisional Forest Officer, Deomali Forest Division, filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District, Khonsa, which was registered as Civil Misc. Revision No. JUD/BC/NTC/Rev.1/06. The Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, upon hearing the parties vide order dated 25.07.2006, directed the Certificate Officer, Deomali, to record the evidences in the matter and after recording the evidences, to send the same to the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, for passing of final order.
It is seen that in compliance of the said order, the evidences were recorded by the Certificate Officer, Deomali. Thereafter, on 07.09.2006, the Certificate holders filed a petition for amendment of the requisition and also filed amended requisition in Form-I and II of the Certificate for an amount of Rs. 48,24,198.78/- being the amount of revised liability, to which the petitioner herein filed its objections. After hearing the parties to the proceeding, amendment was allowed by the Certificate Officer vide an Order dated 03.11.2006. Thereafter, on conclusion of the evidences, the entire case record was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, for
