Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd.,a company registered under the Companies Act. – Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Tripura, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.117, 626 of 2015
Decided On : 30-01-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. B. Datta, Advocate
The court emphasized that the minutes of the negotiated settlement did not constitute a contract except for the part of supplying timber against the deposits and found that the tender process had merged in the negotiated settlement.
Headnote:
Negotiated Settlement - Timber Supply - [Forest Department, Timber Delivery, Negotiated Settlement] - The court discussed the negotiated settlement between the petitioner and the respondents regarding the delivery of timber from the Udaipur Forest Division. The court emphasized that the minutes of the settlement did not constitute a contract except for the part of supplying timber against the deposits. The court found that the tender process had merged in the negotiated settlement and disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed that the timber promised in a negotiated settlement was not supplied despite the deposit made. The respondents argued that the supply commensurate to the money deposit had been completed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the minutes of the negotiated settlement did not constitute a contract except for the part of supplying timber against the deposits. It held that the tender process had merged in the negotiated settlement and disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous.
Issues: Non-supply of timber as promised in the negotiated settlement, interpretation of 'government approved rate' in the context of the settlement, and the merger of the tender process in the negotiated settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the minutes of the negotiated settlement did not constitute a contract except for the part of supplying timber against the deposits. It found that the tender process had merged in the negotiated settlement and disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous, stating that if the petitioners were interested in purchasing timber from the disposable stock, they could only get those at the contemporary rate/price.
1. Heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Both these writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.117 of 2016 [M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Tripura and Others] and W.P.(C) No.626 of 2015 [M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Tripura and Others] are clustered as the common question wades through for disposal by a common judgment and order.
3. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the judgment dated 18.03.2011 delivered in W.P.(C) No.459 of 2006, there was a negotiated settlement between the petitioner and the respondents and the minutes of the said settlement dated 11.04.2012 has been obtained by the petitioners. The said minutes are recorded under No.F.7(201)/For/FP-12/Part-1/BK/2207-212, Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition. The following is the texts of the said minutes:
“Minutes of the meeting held on 11-04-2012 under the Chairmanship of PCCF, Tripura in connection with the disposal of timber under Udaipur Forest Division related to tender dated 26-11-2004
The following official attended the meeting on behalf of the Forest Deptt.,
1. Dr. A.K. Gupta, Addl. PCCF
2. Sri P.K. Das, CF(TC)
3. Sri C.L. Das, Dist. F.O. South
4. Sri B.K. Agarwal, on behalf of M/S/ FAPL, Kailashahar
The following point discussed in the meeting
1. Delivery of timber against the deposited amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs:
As per work order issued in favour of M/S/ Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd., & M/S. Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd, vide letter No.12,649-58 & No./12,659-68 respectively, requested to deposited @ Rs.2.50 lakhs each as advance. DFO, Udaipur vide letter No.17,940 dated 18/01/2006 confirmed that Rs.2.50+ Rs.2.50 lakhs=Rs.5.00 lakhs has been deposited both the farm. It is decided that timber will be supplied from the existing old stock against the deposited amount subject to approval of the Govt.
2. Delivery of rest timber:
After deliberation it is decided that rest of the timber will be delivered from the present stock as per govt. approved rate and for taking outside the state export duty will be imposed as per offer by the both firms during the tender, subject to approval of the Govt.
Sri B.K. Agarwal requested PCCF, Tripura to allow him two days time for acceptance of the same offer and Sri Agarwal will submit the consent letter within two days. Accordingly, PCCF, Tripura allowed two days for submission of his consents.
Meeting ended with thanks to the chair.”
[Emphasis for reference]
4. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel on the basis of the said minutes has submitted that even though both the writ petitioners deposited 2.5 lakhs each, but the timber as promised was not supplied. Further, he has submitted that it was had been decided in the said negotiation that the rest of the timber which has been mentioned in the tender dated 26.11.2004 shall be delivered from the present stock as per the government approved rate. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has emphasized that the word ‘government approved rate’ has to be understood in the context of the negotiated settlement.
5 Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a strong exception to such submission. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the communication dated 25.10.2013 issued by the petitioner, Annexure-P/8 to the reply filed by the respondents, that the timber worth Rs.2,48,260/- were supplied to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.117 of 2016 and for the sum of Rs.2,49,683/- were supplied to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.626 of 2015. The said communication is an acknowledgment of the said minute. Therefore, the supply commensurate to the money deposit has completed.
6. In respect of the other point as raised by Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rest of the timber will be supplied to the petitioners at the g
