1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos.3064, 3065 and 13725 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 3, 2, 3, 1 and 2 of 2011 V.Ramakrishnan .. Petitioner in all WPs Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tamil Nadu Social Forestry Department, Saidapet, Chennai. .. R-1 in WPs 3064 & 3065/2011 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, 170, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli-7. .. Respondent in WP 13725/2011 The Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Department, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli-627 007. .. R-2 in WPs 3064 & 3065/2011 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli. .. R-3 in WPs 3064 & 3065/2011 The Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Division, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District. .. R-4 in WP 3064/2011 The Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Division, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. .. R-4 in WP 3065/2011 W.P(MD) Nos.3064 & 3065/2011: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.SF1/34156/10 dated 23.11.2010 and 19.11.2010 and the records relating to the consequential order passed by the third respondent herein in his proceedings in Chey.Mu.Aa.No.5789/06- Ku., and Chey.Mu.Aa.No.6500/08-Ku., dated 22.2.2011 and 21.2.2011 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to grant extension of time to this petitioner to complete the work in '1984 Chithirampatti Babul Plantation', Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District and '1987 Neivilakkupuram Babu Plantation', Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli. W.P(MD) 13725/2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned auction notification issued by the respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.40/11 dated 27.10.2011 as far as item No.10 '1987 Neivilakkupuram Babul Plantation' and item No.33 '1984 Chithirampatti Babul Plantation' and quash the same. For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram For Respondents in all WPs : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner is an approved Forest Contractor in the Tirunelveli Division. He bagged the contract for cutting and removing the trees in two areas viz., Chithirampatti and Neivilakkupuram. The contracts were for a fixed duration. But within the duration of the contract, the petitioner was unable to complete the task of cutting and removing the trees. His request for extension of time was outrightly rejected in respect of one area. In respect of another area, extension of time was granted twice, but the request for the third time was rejected. 2. Challenging the order of rejection of his request for a third extension in respect of one area viz., Chithirampatti, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.3064 of 2011. Similarly, he has come up with the second writ petition W.P.No.3065 of 2011, challenging the rejection of his request for extension of time even in the first instance in respect of Neivilakkupuram. 3. During the pendency of the above writ petitions, W.P.Nos.3064 and 3065 of 2011, the respondents issued an auction notice dated 27.10.2011 in respect of 37 Forest locations. Challenging the auction notification in respect of the two areas for which he bagged the contract earlier, the petitioner has come up with the third writ petition W.P.No.13725 of 2011. 4. Therefore, all the three writ petitions were taken up together and I have heard Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 W.P.(MD) No.3064/2011 (Chithirampatti Coupe): 5. This writ petition relates to the contract awarded in Chithirampatti area. As stated earlier, the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for a third extension. The list of dates and evens in so far as this area is concerned, are as follows:- (i) The right to cut and remove Karuvela trees in the forest land of an extent of 37 acres in the coupe by name Chithirampatti, was granted to the petitioner in June 2006, for total consideration of Rs.1,85,000/-. The communication dated 6.6.2006 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer made it clear that the contract was subject to the terms and conditions of the auction. One of the conditions was that the petitioner was obliged to cut and remove the trees during the period from 6.6.2006 to 31.8.2006. The proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 6.6.2006 made it clear that no extension of time would be granted on any pretext. (ii) The work order issued to the petitioner on 23.6.2006 also made it clear that the petitioner should complete the task within the time stipulated. (iii) However, contending that due to rains, he could not remove the load, the petitioner requested extension of time by 60 days by a letter dated 11.9.2006 After more than 16 months, the Forest Ranger issued a communication dated 27.2.2008, granting time upto 29.2.2008 for removing the trees. (iv) But the petitioner again made a request for extension, by a letter dated 11.3.2008, on the ground that there was water stagnation. The said request was also conceded by a letter dated 13.3.2009, granting extension upto 30.6.2009 on condition that the petitioner pays an additional fee of Rs.42,871/-. (v) Unable to complete the work even with the second extension, the petitioner made an application for a third extension, by a letter dated 22.7.2009, followed by a reminder dated 30.7.2009. But the said request was turned down by the Divisional Forest Officer by a communication dated 17.12.2009. It was confirmed on appeal by the Conservator of Forests by his order dated 11.6.2010. (vi) When the petitioner made a further appeal to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, by his letter dated 20.6.2010, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, issued a communication dated 23.11.2010, directing the initiation of disciplinary action against the subordinates who failed to take action as per the tender conditions and who failed to bring the coupe for fresh action in the past 5 years. (vii) It is only thereafter that the Divisional Forest Officer (third respondent herein) woke up to the reality of the situation and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 issued the communication dated 22.2.2011, directing the forfeiture of the Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner. (viii) Therefore, challenging the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated 23.11.2010 and the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 22.2.2011, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. WP No.3065/2011 (Neivilakkupuram Coupe): 6. The petitioner participated in a tender in December 2008 for the grant of a right to cut and remove the Karuvela trees from the land of an extent of 11 acres in Neivilakkupuram coupe. He was issued with a work order dated 1.4.2009, granting time upto 31.8.2009 for cutting and removing the trees. 7. On 9.9.2009, he made a request for extension of time on the ground that there was water stagnation in the area. But the Divisional Forest Officer issued a notice dated 30.9.2009, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Earnest Money deposited by him should not be forfeited and the coupe brought to fresh auction. 8. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation, the Divisional Forest Officer rejected the same by his order dated 21.12.2009. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Conservator of Forests, but he also rejected the request by his order dated 11.6.2010. The further appeal filed by the petitioner to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was rejected on 19.11.2010. 9. Thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer issued the order dated 21.11.2010, directing the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.4,900/- made by the petitioner. Challenging the order of the first respondent dated 19.11.2010, rejecting the request for extension of time and the order of the DFO, directing the forfeiture of EMD, the petitioner has come up with W.P.No.3065/2011. W.P.No.13725/2011: 10. After the request of the petitioner was rejected and his Earnest Money Deposits were directed to be forfeited, the Divisional Forest Officer issued a re-tender notice dated 27.10.2011 in respect of about 33 coupes. Citing the pendency of his first two writ petitions, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the re-tender notification in so far as the areas of Neivilakkupuram and Chithirampatti are concerned. 11. The sequence of events narrated above would show that in respect of Chithirampatti area, the petitioner was granted a lot of indulgence by the Divisional Forest Officer. The original period of contract expired on 31.8.2006 itself. Therefore, the very grant of first extension by an order dated 27.2.2008 was highly dishonest. The upset price fixed for the auction of the right to cut and remove the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 trees in a coupe, is always based upon the extent of growth in the coupe at a particular point of time. The duration of time for cutting and removing is fixed, taking into account the fact that over a period of time, there may be further growth, conferring an unintended benefit upon the highest bidder. 12. Therefore, the first extension of time granted after about 18 months of the expiry of the original duration of the contract, is something unpardonable. Hence the warning issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and his direction to initiate disciplinary action against the subordinate officials is well founded and in public interest. 13. Adding fuel to fire, the third respondent granted a second contention, which was after the expiry of about 13 months from the date of the first extension. By this time, a period of nearly 2-1/2 years had passed from the date of the original contract. It is of course true that the first extension was granted upon payment of an additional amount of Rs.22,670/- and the second extension was granted upon payment of another amount of Rs.42,871/-. But the basis on which these amounts were fixed, is not known. Therefore the two extensions granted by the Divisional Forest Officer were wholly arbitrary and contrary to public interest. Hence the refusal to grant third extension and the direction to forfeit the Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner, can hardly be found fault with. 14. In so far as the Neivilakkupuram is concerned, the respondents fortunately did not grant even a single extension. As pointed out earlier, the extension of time for cutting and removing trees would be contrary to public interest, in view of the fact that the extent of growth of trees would be more, after a lapse of time. Therefore, an unintended benefit would accrue to the Contractor if extension of time is granted, without any basis. 15. There is also one more factor. The development of the forest cover and the extent of afforestation, always depend upon the prompt cutting and removing of the grown up and dead trees. The failure to remove the grown up and dead trees impede the development of forest cover. By not cutting and removing the trees for which he bagged a contract 5 years ago, the petitioner has virtually prevented the development of forest cover. 16. The extent of damage caused by the petitioner to the environment, is today immeasurable. Therefore, the rejection of the request for extension of time and the forfeiture of the EMD, cannot be found fault with. 17. Once it is concluded that the grant of extension of time to the petitioner would be against public interest, the attempt of the respondents to bring the areas to fresh auction, cannot be prevented. Therefore, the third writ petition is also bound to fail as a consequence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 18. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tamil Nadu Social Forestry Department, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, 170, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli-7. 3.The Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Department, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli-627 007. 4.The Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Division, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District. 5.The Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Division, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. Common Order in W.Ps(MD) 3064,3065 & 13725/2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 3, 2, 3, 1 and 2 of 2011 12.12.2011 Svn NSV/27.12.11/6P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/