IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 5452 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N. BABU, GEETHALAYAM, KADATHUR K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT ADHINAD NORTH P.O., KOLLAM-690542. 2. KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT KULASEKHARAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.N.VIMALAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5452/2008-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The second respondent panchayat decided to auction off some of the trees standing in the lands belonging to the panchayat. The materials do not disclose any particular purpose for such felling of trees. This Court hopes that the panchayat has taken an appropriate decision, having regard to its statutory duties and responsibilities to ensure maintenance of the environment and sustaining the ecological factors. 2.Going by Ext.R1(a), one Babu had bid seven trees in Ward No.VII on 24.12.2007 for an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. He did not honour that transaction. WP(C)5452/08 -: 2 :- 3.Obviously therefore, there was a re-auction and on 31.1.2008, the petitioner bid it for Rs.71,500/-. That value was higher than the value fixed for those seven trees by the Divisional Forest Officer. 4.The Panchayat Assistant Engineer, thereafter, made Ext.R1(b) valuation taking the stand that after deducting the cutting charge and 25% for outer portion and wastage, the value of the timber of those seven trees would come to Rs.1,07,112/-. Though he states so in Ext.R1(b), that document shows that all the seven trees are treated to be of the same quality for fixing the rates, though the third column of Ext.R1(b) would disclose that the total quantity of wood available from the seven trees is different, obviously, indicating difference in girth etc. A perusal of Ext.P4 prepared by the DFO discloses the measurements which show different girth measurements for the different trees. The Panchayat does not attribute WP(C)5452/08 -: 3 :- any vitiating factor to the fixation of the value by the DFO, who is an authority regularly dealing with such matters and conversant with the Manual for pricing of timber which provides for classification of timber into different categories depending upon the girth etc. 5.It also needs to be stated that the value quoted by Babu in 2007 was more than double of what the Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat has now stated in Ext.R1(b). It is nobody's case that the rate of the price of Anjili wood has come down. Obviously, the bidding by Babu does not reflect a true and proper value. With the aforesaid, the petitioner appears to be justified in stating that when a due process is followed by the panchayat and the value fixed and auction provisionally confirmed in favour of the petitioner, there is no reason why there should be a re-auction denying the petitioner of the benefit of the auction. It is also stated that the petitioner is not a merchant in timber but intended to buy the timber in WP(C)5452/08 -: 4 :- question only for the purpose of providing wood for the construction of his house which is nearby. He, therefore, expected that he may not have to spend much for transport etc. 6.Taking into consideration the value of the trees as fixed by the DFO, the Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat and having regard to the amount for which the petitioner bid, on a proper appreciation of the ground realities based on the submissions of either side, it is taken that an amount of Rs.90,000/- in total would be a due consideration for the sale and the petitioner has also to pay the taxes payable on such amount. This will give a closure to this controversy and also do complete justice between the parties. Therefore, without creating any precedent in that regard, this writ petition is ordered directing that the respondents will confirm the bid in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.90,000/- and on his remitting the due amount WP(C)5452/08 -: 5 :- and taxes, he will be permitted to enjoy the benefit of the contract. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100609