A quasi-judicial authority lacks inherent power to review or recall its own orders unless such authority is specifically conferred by statute or necessary implication; thus, a unilateral withdrawal of an earlier order by such an authority is without jurisdiction and invalid.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

The writ appeal is preferred challenging the judgment in W.P.No.2602/2012 dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. We have heard Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants as well as Sri. Anand B Muddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the order dated 22/23.08.2006 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests in file No.B3-Srigandha-ca 45/2005-06 produced at Annexure-T and also to quash the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.1/Sec/(109)/08-09 produced at Annexure 'X' and also to issue a direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to refund the fixed deposit amount of Rs.26,97,842/- with interest accrued thereon, in favour of the petitioner.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions advanced had set aside the order vide Annexure-Y dated 13.01.2012 and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the issue of refund of fixed deposit of Rs.26,96,842/- with accrued interest in favour of the petitioner, afresh, after hearing them.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the State Government by Order dated 23.05.2003 permitted supply of 10 metric tons of sandalwood billets to respondent No.1–Sahakara Sangha for three years from 2005–06 at 50% of the market value. An Official Memorandum stipulated that payment of market value with applicable taxes must be made in advance before supply. Pursuant to an order dated 01.06.2005, 10 metric tonnes of sandalwood were sold on 13.06.2005 at 50% of market value for Rs.56,31,165/-, which was paid by the respondent through demand draft.

6. It is further submitted that as the rates were revised on the dates of supply, an undertaking dated 26.10.2005 was given stating that the Government had raised the price with effect from 04.07.2005 and that the difference for 4085 kilograms amounted to Rs.23,20,000/- as security deposit. It is contended that the respondent did not pay the difference amount as per the revised rate for the entire 10 metric tonnes of sandalwood. Accordingly, a demand dated 22.08.2005 and a further demand dated 16.04.2009 were raised for Rs.57,45,321/-. The demand dated 16.04.2009 was challenged in W.P. No.27037/2009, and this Court by Order dated 22.11.2010 upheld the demand of Rs.57,45,321/- payable by the respondent as per the revised rates.

7. It is further submitted that appellant No.3 initiated proceedings under Section 109 (Recovery of Money due to Government) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. After hearing the parties and taking note of the encashment of the security deposit of Rs.23,20,000/- and the amount deposited by the respondent in 2006–07, it was calculated that Rs.45,81,908/- was already recovered and that only Rs.11,63,413/- was payable. However, by order dated 24.12.2010, appellant No.3 held that the said amount was not due from the respondent, without knowledge of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27037/2009 dated 22.11.2010.The order dated 24.12.2010 was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.12/2011, which noted that action had been taken during the pendency of the appeal and rendered the appeal infructuous. Thereafter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, by several letters, directed appellant No.3 to reconsider the order dated 24.12.2010, as the demand dated 16.04.2009 for Rs.57,45,321/- had been upheld by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.27037/2009. In view of this, th