SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 272

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.
M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, etc., Petitioners
Versus
The State of J. and K. and another, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 481-482 of 1979
Decided on 9-5-1980.
 
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. N. Bhatt, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Advocate (for No. 1) and Mr. E. C. Agarwal, Advocate (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Advocates:
Altaf Ahmed, E.C.AGARWAL, K.N.BHATT

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 - Contract - Wage basis - Work of extraction and collection of resin - Challenged - Dispute in these writ petitions relates to validity of an Order dated passed by Government of Jammu and Kashmir, allotting to 2nd respondents 10 to 12 lacs blazes annually for extraction of resin from inaccessible chir forests in Poonch, Reasi and Ramban Divisions of State for a period of 10 years on terms and conditions set out in Order - Validity of Order has been challenged on various grounds which we shall presently set out, but in order to understand and appreciate these grounds, it is necessary to state briefly circumstances in which Order came to be passed by Government - Actual collection of resin starts every year - Maximum flow of resin from blazes is during months and in subsequent months of working season, namely, July to October, flow gradually decreases due to rainy season followed by fall in temperature - Whether on royalty basis or otherwise, should be given only by open auction - Whether action of Govt. is reasonable and in public interest – Held, petitioners in Writ Petition No. had very little experience of extraction of resin, since they had taken tapping contract for first time only in and so far as processing of resin is concerned, they had no experience at all, as they did not have any factory for processing of resin nor had they at any time in past, participated in any auction of resin - Petitioners in writ petition No. were principally grocery and provision merchants and though they had taken some tapping contracts in past, they had no experience at all in processing of resin since they did not own any factory - State had in fact given two contracts to 2nd respondents in year to install factories for manufacture of resin and turpentine oil in public sector and these contracts have been carried out by 2nd respondents to entire satisfaction of State - So far as relative merits of petitioners on one hand and 2nd respondents on other were concerned, 2nd respondents were definitely superior and it cannot be said that State acted unreasonably or contrary to public interest in preferring 2nd respondents and permitting them to put up a factory within State and awarding them tapping contract in respect of these blazes for purpose of factory - Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI, J.:— These two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raise questions of some importance in the field of constitutional law but they are not abstract questions which can be divorced from the facts giving rise to them and in order to resolve them satisfactorily, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. Though the petitioners in two writ petitions are different, the respondents are the same and the same Order of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is challenged in both the writ petitions. Hence whatever we say it regard to the first writ petition applies equally in regard to the second.

2. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to the validity of an Order dated 27th April, 1979, passed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, allotting to the 2nd respondents 10 to 12 lacs blazes annually for extraction of resin from the inaccessible chir forests in Poonch, Reasi and Ramban Divisions of the State for a period of 10 years on the terms and conditions set out in the Order. The validity of the Order has been challenged on various grounds which we shall presently set out, but in order to understand and appreciate these grounds, it is necessary to state briefly the circumstances in which the Order came to be passed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. There is a commodity called Oleo-resin, which we shall hereafter refer shortly as resin, which is a forest produce extracted from a certain species of trees popularly known as chir trees. The process of extraction is called tapping and it involves several steps. Chir trees are annually given one or two wounds which are technically called blazes and cups and lips are fixed at the bottom of each blaze for collection of resin. The actual collection of resin starts from 1st April and ends on 31st October every year. The maximum flow of resin from blazes is during the months of May and June and in the subsequent months of the working season, namely, July to October, the flow gradually decreases due to the rainy season followed by fall in temperature. The tapping of resin is a continuous process and the initial blazings have to be followed by freshenings given every week. If the blazes are not freshened regularly, the resin ducts get blocked and the blazes become dry and once a blaze becomes dry, the flow of resin stops completely. The resin that is collected in the cups is transferred to tin containers every weekends or earlier if required, and the tin containers are then transported to the transit depots for being carried to the destination. This process of tapping requires employment of skilled labour and involves a considerable amount of expenditure. The State of Jammu and Kashmir started tapping operations in respect of its chir trees since about 1973 by giving contracts to private parties for extraction and collection of resin. The contracts were of three types:

(1) One was contract on wage basis, commonly known as wage contract, which was given by auctioning the blazes to the person who was prepared to undertake the work of extraction and collection of resin at the lowest rates of labour charges and in such contract, the entire resin extracted and collected by the contractor would belong to the State and the contractor would be entitled only to the wage or labour charges for extraction and collection of resin.

(2) The second type of contract was on the basis of royalty without load and under this contract, which was again given by auction stipulating for payment of royalty per blaze, the entire resin extracted and collected by the contractor would belong to him and he would be free to sell or process it as he liked.

(3) The third type of contract given by the State was on the basis of royalty with load and under this contract, which was also given by auction, the royalty was payable per blaze and out of the resin extracted and collected by the contractor, a certain part would have to be surrendered to the State while the balance would remain with t





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top