IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24642 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- TRAVANCORE TIMBERS AND PRODUCTS, ERAYILKADAVU,KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.VARGHESE PAUL. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, ACHENCOVIL DIVISION,ACHENCOVIL-689696. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOTTAYAM-686002. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.R.RAVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24642 of 2011(E) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER-CUM-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 30/9/02 PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 15.10.2002. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FORESTS DATED 20.1.2003. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.C1-1318/2002 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.11.2010. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2010. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.B9/2011/9027/5(DN-278/11)IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.7.2011. EXHIBIT-P5(A): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.B9/2011/9027/5 (DN-278/11)IN FORM NO.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT:4.7.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P. A. TO JUDGE VK S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 24642 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts due from him as per a contract entered into by him with the respondents. The petitioner participated in the auction for sale of timber. After the contract was signed and the petitioner cut down part of the trees, the petitioner withdrew from the contract. Thereafter, the respondents reauctioned the same and the difference between the bid of the petitioner and the amount fetched on re- auction was sought to be recovered from the petitioner as loss caused to the Government. The petitioner's contention is that without an independent authority deciding the question of breach and the quantum of damages, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for recovery of alleged damages under the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. It is true that when there is a dispute regarding breach of contract and quantum of damages, even the Government as a party to a contract has to resort to independent proceedings for deciding the question of breach of contract and quantum of damages. But the dispute shall not be merely for the sake of dispute. In this case, there is no scope for dispute at all. Admittedly, the contract was signed by w.p.c.24642/11 - : 2 :- the petitioner and in fact, he partly enjoyed fruits of the contract. Thereafter, admittedly, the petitioner abandoned the contract. As such, the petitioner cannot now dispute that there is breach of contract. The amount claimed as loss is the difference between the amount for which the work contract has been finalised in favour of the petitioner and the amount for which the work has been re-auctioned. As such, there cannot be any dispute regarding the quantum of loss also. If the petitioner wants to prove that the breach was on account of any reasons attributable to the respondents, it is for the petitioner seek remedies before the civil Court. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge