JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of April, 2022 The petitioner, a Proprietary Firm doing the business of trading in Timber, is before this Court seeking to set aside Exts.P6 and P8 and to direct the respondents to repay the `

amount of 6,51,500/- paid by the petitioner towards part value `

of the timber and EMD of 50,000/-, with 12% interest.

2. The petitioner states that in response to a tender notification dated 23.10.2020, the petitioner participated in auction of timbers and successfully bid 8 lots of timbers. The value of timbers had to be paid by 14.06.2021. It was during this period that a lock-down was imposed consequent to the 2nd wave of Covid-19 pandemic. The lockdown commenced on 08.05.2021 and continued upto 16.06.2021. As the last day for remitting the value of timber fell within the lockdown period, the petitioner could not remit the amount. Though the petitioner subsequently approached the respondents offering to pay the amount, the respondents did not accept the amount stating that the last date is over.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the 1st wave of Covid-19 pandemic when lock- down was declared, the Government issued Ext.P5 Government Order, whereunder extension of time for payment of money and for lifting the timber was granted taking into consideration the total period of lock-down. However, in the case of the petitioner, during the 2nd wave of Covid-19 pandemic, though the Government issued Ext.P6 Government Oder, time for payment of money was not extended, though the time for lifting the timber was extended.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is highly discriminatory. The petitioner could not remit the amount in time for the sole reason that a lock-down was clamped during the period prescribed for payment of money. The Government cannot take differential attitude to the Contractors who bid during the 1st wave of Covid-19 pandemic and during the 2nd wave of Covid-19 pandemic. The contract with the petitioner has been terminated. However, the respondents are not paying the amount already deposited by the petitioner and the EMD. This is highly arbitrary, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and contested the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O.[Rt]No.20/2021/Forest dated 19.10.2021, two weeks extension was granted for removal of timber only to those bidders, who had already paid the material value and the taxes applicable. The petitioner did not pay the amount in time. According to Sale Condition 14(b), if successful bidder fails to remit the amount as prescribed in the Acceptance Letter within the prescribed time, the bid will be treated as cancelled and all remittances including EMD will be forfeited. The petitioner participated in the bid with open eyes and now cannot turn around and challenge the condition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest)

representing the respondents.

7. Apart from the conditions of agreement, the fact remains that during the 1st wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the Government had issued Ext.P5 whereunder, the period of lock-down was excluded for the purpose of remitting the value of timber. Those Contractors, who bid in auction, got the facility to pay the money during the extended period. At the same time, during the 2nd wave of Covid-19 pandemic, Contractors like the petitioner have been put to a disadvantage our position inasmuch as, by Ext.P6 G.O. the Government has extended only the time for lifting the logs. The period of lock-down was not excluded for the purpose of making payment of the cost of the timber. Therefore, prima facie there is a differential treatment.

8. However, this Court finds that this is a matter to be looked into by the 1st respondent. In the case of the petitioner, the timber/logs took in auction by the petitioner have already been re-auctioned and it i