IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27043 of 2003 Between: M.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Venkaiah, R/o.Raikal Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar (West), Karimnagar. 2 The Chief Conservator of Forests, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to the proceedings Rc.No.296/94/89 dated 2-10-2003 issued by the Ist respondent herein to the petitioner to pay the Government loss of Rs.1.57 Lakhs arrears within (15) days as illegal, arbitrary and principles of natural justice and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to return back the Earnest Money Deposit amount of Rs.1,16,408 with interest forthwith to the petitioner by dropping all further proceedings and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI P.VENKATASWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27043 of 2003 ORDER: The ﬁrst respondent invited tenders for sale of abnus leaves (beedi leaves) for 1994 season. The petitioner was successful bidder for Unit No.129 of Bhupathipur in Karimnagar District. His bid was accepted by proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent, dated 02.02.1994. The petitioner executed an agreement with the ﬁrst respondent on 02.02.1994. As per the agreement, the beedi leaves are collected by local people in the reserved forest and will be brought to the speciﬁed purchase spot for Unit No.129, Bhupathipur. As part of the contract the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,16,408/- as security deposit in the shape of bank guarantee. Under the agreement the petitioner is required to get release of beedi leaves in three monthly installments by October 31st 1994, November 30th 1994 and December 31st 1994 on payment of each installment. On such payment, proportionate quantity of beedi leaves will be released. The petitioner alleges that due to intervention of naxalites, beedi leaves were not brought to purchase spot. Therefore, he could not do his business, and hence, requested the Oﬃcials to cancel the agreement and return bank guarantee, in vain. He made another representation on 15.10.1994 informing that there was no purchase of beedi leaves and requested to drop all other action. As there was no response, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.16664 of 1995, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.12.2002 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, ﬁrst respondent issued a notice dated 15.04.2003 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation. Petitioner submitted explanation on 28.04.2003. Rejecting the same, the ﬁrst respondent issued notice/order, dated 02.10.2003, requesting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1.57 lakhs as arrears/loss suﬀered by the Government. This is assailed in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated various contentions taken by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit accompanying the writ petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, after taking this Court through various clauses in the agreement dated 02.02.1994 submits that when the contract is covered by an agreement, the parties are bound by the same, and a writ petition does not lie. Nextly, she contends that as per clause 12(ii) of the agreement, any dispute arising out of the agreement is appealable before the Conservator of Forests, and therefore, writ petition would not lie. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily would not lie in matters of Government contractual powers, unless at principal contract stage the Government or public authorities exercise power in an arbitrary manner subverting public interest. When once a contract is entered into between the State/Government and citizen, the disputes arising out of the contract have to be resolved either in a civil Court or as provided in the agreement. A reference may be made to Radhakrishna Agarwal v State of Bihar[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that power to enter into contract is not always regulated by the Constitution. The relationship of persons to the contract is regulated by the contract. The State as well as other persons to the contract is bound by the obligations in the contract. Though the relationship between the persons to the contract is not the relationship of master and servant, after entering into contract, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions, but by the legally valid contract. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy for redressing the grievance of the parties to the contract. The following observations of the apex Court in Radhakrishna Agarwal (supra), further lay down as under. … … Even if the appellants could be said to have raised any aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution and this Article could at all be held to operate within the contractual ﬁeld whenever the State enters into such contracts, which we gravely doubt, such questions of fact do not appear to have been urged before the High Court. And in any event, they are of such a nature that they cannot be satisfactorily decided without a detailed abduction of evidence, which is only possible in ordinary civil suits, to establish that the State, acting in its executive capacity through its oﬃcers, has discriminated between parties identically situated. On the allegations and aﬃdavit evidence before us we cannot reach such a conclusion. Moreover, as we have already indicated earlier, the correct view is that it is the contract and not the executive power, regulated by the Constitution, which governs the relations of the parties on facts apparent in the cases before us. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, clause 12(ii) of the agreement, dated 02.02.1994, provides that in case of any dispute arising between the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer and the purchaser as to any matter arising under the agreement, such dispute shall be referred to the Conservator of Forests concerned within two months. The Conservator of Forests is also given liberty to condone delay if he is satisﬁed with the grounds of delay. Therefore, the disputed questions of fact as to whether the people brought beedi leaves to purchase spot, whether there was a threat of naxalites from plucking beedi leaves, whether petitioner could not carryon business, and whether contract itself is frustrated, are matters which are to be decided by the Conservator of Forests. The writ petition is not a proper remedy. Therefore, the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under clause 12(ii) of the agreement dated 02.02.1994 before the concerned Conservator of Forests. Such appeal shall be ﬁled within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such appeal is ﬁled, the Conservator of Forests may condone the delay and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.11.2008 vs To 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar (West), Karimnagar. 2 The Chief Conservator of Forests, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 2CCs to G.P for Forests, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } [1] AIR 1977 SC 1496