IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 4442 of 2001 BETWEEN: V. Ram Reddy, S/o. V. Raj Reddy, R/o. Rajnandgoan, Chattishgarh. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad. 3 Divisional Forest Officer, Mancheriyal Division. 4 Divisional Forest Officer, Bellampally Division, 5 S. Narender, S/o. Bakaiah, R/o. Bheemaram, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District. 6 R. Mohan Reddy, R/o. Mancherial, Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly oen in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of petitioner's appointment order and conducting a resale in respect of Unit No.156, Jaipur, Mancheriyal Division and Unit No.179 Narwaipet, Bellampally Division, Adilabad District as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment letter and further direct the respondents to execute agreements in favour of the petitioner for the said units and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for revocation of cancellation of his appointment order and conducting a resale in respect of Unit No.156, Jaipur, Mancheriyal Division and Unit No.179 Narwaipet, Bellampally Division, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to revoke the cancellation of the his appointment letter and further direct the respondents to execute agreements in favour of the petitioner for the said units. 2. Counter has been ﬁled stating that that pursuant to the advance sale notiﬁcation dated 01.03.2001 notifying Unit No.156, Jaipur of Mancherial Forest Division and Unit No.179, Narvaipet of Bellampalli Forest Division, a tender notiﬁcation in Rc.No.2828/2000- M2(STC) dated 20.12.2000, the petitioner submitted a tender, which has been accepted subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute agreement with the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) concerned on or before 03.02.2001 by paying a security deposit, a sum equal to 20% of the sale amount and also deposit a security equivalent to 50% of collection charges and also to produce non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/- for execution of agreement. But as the petitioner failed to comply with the above conditions within the stipulated time i.e. 03.02.2001 the orders of appointment of purchaser issued in respect of the aforesaid units were cancelled by the DFO’s concerned vide proceedings dated 26.02.2001 and 07.02.2001 and the units were put to resale on 08.03.2001. During the re-sale conducted on 08.03.2001 one Mr. S. Narender and one Mr. R. Mohan Reddy became the highest tenderers in respect of unit No.156 and unit No.179 respectively. 3. I am of the opinion that as the petitioner himself failed to comply with the conditions stipulated within the prescribed time and after the cancellation of appointment order by orders dated 07.02.2001 and 26.02.2001 and after issuance of resale notiﬁcation dated 08.03.2001, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a relief to set aside the proceedings of resale in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. However, the contractual matters between the parties have no statutory force and the Government is entitled to dispose the forest produce to any other private individual. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have a power to revoke the appointment order of purchaser is concerned, I am of the opinion that such a clause cannot be invoked after the resale of the units on account of the default committed by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 29, 2008 DSK