IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24307 of 2006(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.G. SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, KURUMTHOTTATHIL VEEDU, KUMBAZHA KARA AND POST, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE RANGE OFFICER, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAULOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24307/2006-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DTD. 10/09/94 GIVEN TO R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 23/11/94 OF R.2. COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DTD. 07/12/94 GIVEN TO R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DTD. 28/12/94 GIVEN TO R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S LETTER DTD. 27/12/96 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REGISTERED LETTER DTD. 25/01/97 COMMUNICATED TO R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S REGISTERED LETTER DTD. 20/03/97 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/01/98 IN C.M.P. NO. 45/98 IN O.P.NO.44/98 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 31/01/98 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA ISSUED TO PETITIONER. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/06/06 IN O.P. NO. 44/1998 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KNA2-207/02 DTD. 17/06/06 OF R.1. COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER ON 31/08/06. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DTD. 25/08/06 OF R.1. COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER ALONG WITH DETAILED ACCOUNT STATEMENT. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REGISTERED OBJECTION DTD. 09/09/06 FORWARDED TO R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION FOR THE RE-AUCTION ON 22/12/94. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE SALE CONDITIONS. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE BIDDER WAR ABSTRACT FOT THE RE-AUCTION ON 22/12/94. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 3002/4/95/PR DTD. 25/04/95. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 46038/D5/96 DTD. 13/12/96. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 24307 OF 2006 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: (i) to call for the records connected with Ext.P11 order and Ext.P12 communication of first respondent and to quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari; (ii) to declare that the petitioner is obliged to pay only a total sum of Rs.124838/- towards loss sustained by the Forest Department during the re-auction held on 22/12/94 and also proper and reasonable advertisement charges already spent for the re-auction notification, as revealed from relevant records; (iii) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of this case, including the cost of the petitioner in this proceedings. 2. The petitioner had bid 69 teak-poles and 18 bundles of firewood, the total value of which is Rs.315399/-, in the auction sale in Konni Range on 29/3/1994. As the bidder failed to remit the amount in time, re-auction was conducted on 22/12/1994 at the risk -2- WP(C).No.24307/2006 and cost of the original bidder. The case of the department is that for the above 22 lots sold in the re-auction on 22/12/94 the value fetched was only Rs.1,90,561/- and that lead to a total loss of Rs.1,49,577/- to the Government. 3. Ext.P5 is the registered notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer to the petitioner demanding Rs.1,49,577/- towards the loss caused to the Government. Subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer issued Ext.P7 registered letter dated 20/3/1997 to the petitioner demanding payment of Rs.1,49,577/-. It is stated in Ext.P7 that Rs.1,49,577/- is the loss caused to the Government consequent on the breach of contract committed by the petitioner. Ext.P7 was challenged in W.P.(C).No.44/1998. This Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P10 judgment. In Ext.P10 judgment referring to Ext.P5 notice this Court observed that the Divisional Forest Officer has specifically stated that the loss caused to the Government is Rs.1,24,838/-, that from the said amount an amount of Rs.20,000/- which has been paid as earnest -3- WP(C).No.24307/2006 money has also to be reduced and that however, as per Ext.P5 the total amount demanded from the petitioner is Rs.1,49,577/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner in that case pointed out that the demand of Rs.1,49,577/- is an obvious mistake in calculation. This Court further observed that by any stretch of imagination, advertisement charges cannot be to the tune of Rs.49,000/- and held that there is a mistake committed by the Divisional Forest officer in computing the amounts. Therefore the court issued directions to the Divisional Forest Officer to communicate to the petitioner the correct amount of loss due from him, which shall not be more than what has been stated in Ext.P5, namely, Rs.1,24,838/-. This Court also directed that the petitioner shall pay the amounts due minus the amount already paid pursuant to the interim order of this Court in four equal monthly instalments starting from 1st day of the next month, after the receipt of the communication from the 4th respondent. The judgment is dated 29th June, 2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the -4- WP(C).No.24307/2006 Divisional Forest Officer pursuant to the judgment (Ext.P10). The Divisional Forest Officer in Ext.P11 order stated that the total amount caused to the Government is Rs.1,49,577/- and the difference in the bid amount is 1,24,838/-. It also added penal interests, surcharge, FDT @ 5% on loss amount of Rs.1,24,838/- and sales tax @ 8%, ground rent for 6 months and advertisement charges etc. The Divisional Forest officer also stated that the total amount is Rs.1,49,577/- and he demanded the said amount from the petitioner. Ext.P12 is the demand notice issued pursuant to Ext.P11 order. Ext.P13 is the communication issued by the petitioner to the Divisional Forest Officer stating that the demand as per Ext.P11 and P12 is illegal against the directions of this Court and therefore requested the Divisional Forest Officer to modify the order. In Ext.P10 judgment the direction issued by this Court is to assess the correct amount of loss due to the Government and to give the details to the petitioner and at the same time this Court directed that whatever be the the loss and whether it is above Rs.1,24,838 or -5- WP(C).No.24307/2006 below Rs.1,24,838/-. The payment from the petitioner was not exceeded Rs.1,24,838/-, which is the difference in bid amount. On a reading of Ext.P10 it s clear that the direction issued is to realise only Rs.1,24,838/-. After receiving Ext.P10 judgment, the Divisional Forest Officer without complying with the directions issued, demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,49,577/-. The said demand is against the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment. The learned counsel submitted that apart from the remittance of Rs.20,000/- as earnest money deposit, he remitted Rs.30,000/- on 31/1/1998 as evidenced by Ext.P9 receipt and remitted a further amount of Rs.75,000/- as per the interim order passed by this Court. Thus the petitioner remitted Rs.1,05,000/-. The total amount remitted, which includes Rs.20,000/- as EMD, is Rs.1,25,000/-. The amount due to the respondents as per Ext.P10 judgment is Rs.1,24,838/-. There is an excess payment of Rs.162/-. (Advertisement charges). In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Exts.P11 and -6- WP(C).No.24307/2006 P12 are quashed It is made clear that the petitioner cleared off the amounts due as per Exts.P11 and P12 demands. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.