IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21375 of 2009(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.I.VARGHESE, AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.ITTOOP, KUZHIKKADAN HOUSE, KOMBANAD P.O,PIN- 683 555. BY ADVS. MR.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, MR.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, KODANAD, PIN -683 544. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THUNDATHIL, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O, PIN- 686 691. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.H. HANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.21375 of 2009-N ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakim, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the auction held pursuant to tender notification dated 10.4.1996 for the sale of teak timber. The auction was held on 23.5.1996. The auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and Ext.P1 letter dated 27.6.1996 was issued to him by the second respondent. According to the petitioner though he had remitted the entire sum of Rs.16,78,315/- mentioned in Ext.P1, there was short delivery of 216 teak poles. He submits that when shortage was noticed he submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 20.2.1997 requesting the first respondent to make available 216 teak poles or to refund the value of the said timber remitted by him. The petitioner kept quite for a long time. He thereafter submitted Exts.P3 and P5 applications seeking certain information. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to deliver 216 teak poles to him or in the alternative to refund its value together with interest thereon. W.P(C) No.21375 of 2009-N 2 3. The first respondent has filed a statement dated 21.8.2009. Para 4 and 5 thereof reads as follows: “4. It is submitted that the auction was conducted on 25.3.1996 and petitioner was a successful bidder and he was directed to pay the auction amount by way of Ext.P1 notice dt.27.6.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner remitted the amount and the respondents issued relevant transit pass also for transporting the auctioned timber from the plantation to the place of the petitioner. The petitioner removed the major portion of the timber selectively and out of 2493 poles of third quality timber he removed around 2277 poles and abandoned about 216 of third quality teak poles in the plantation. There was no reason for abandoning the above substandard poles and the petitioner was bound to remove the entire teak poles within a period of 120 days from the date of intimation of confirmation of sale. 5. It is submitted that the third quality teak poles are substandard poles and they will be completely ruined and damaged, if they are exposed to sun and rain. The petitioner who is a timber contractor as well as timber merchant was fully aware of the quality of the timber and he purposely abandoned 216 poles in the plantation for the best reasons known to him. It is submitted that the petitioner did not approached the respondents in time and this writ petition is filed long after the said auction for the delivery of the teak poles which the auction purchaser purposely abandoned.” 4. It is evident from the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner kept quite for nearly 13 years after the auction sale was conducted. Apart from sending Ext.P2 letter dated 20.2.1997 the petitioner did not take any step to establish his contention that there was short delivery of 216 teak poles as claimed by him. The first respondent has in the statement stated that by efflux of time and by exposure to the elements of nature the teak poles would W.P(C) No.21375 of 2009-N 3 have been damaged and destroyed. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant if in fact there was short delivery of teak poles as claimed by him. Instead, he slept over his rights if any for more than a decade, I am of therefore of the considered opinion that the claim made by the petitioner is highly belated. Even a suit for damages cannot be maintained at this stage. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab