IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 2310 of 2002(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, UDAYA CROCKERY, CHAVARA, QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI FOREST DIVISION, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VADASSERIKKARA RANGE, VADASSERIKARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. DY. TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.4070/2002 IN O.P. NO.2310/2002 DISMISSED: 26.9.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.3.4.1986 ISSUED BY R1. P2:PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.25.4.1986 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 DT.28.3.1987. P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.5436/87-B DT.26.11.1990. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R3. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.2310 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of an amount of Rs.29,562/- being loss caused to the Forest Department on account of breach of contract committed by petitioner. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for respondents. The petitioner admittedly participated in auction sale of timber by the Forest Department and in the auction held on 27.9.1983, petitioner being the highest bidder purchased the goods. However, after participating in the auction and after deposit of security deposit, petitioner failed to remit balance consideration. Based on tender conditions, goods were resold and in the second sale, price obtained was less than the price at which goods were sold to the petitioner. Consequently in terms of tender conditions, differential price was sought to be recovered towards loss caused to the department. Even though in the first round this court directed a hearing to be given to the petitioner, repeated demand is raised against which this O.P. is filed. 2. The first contention raised by the petitioner i.e. limitation, is not 2 sustainable because Government has 30 years' time to recover the arrears due to it. So far as quantification is concerned, provision for computation of liquidated damages is contained in the tender conditions accepted by the petitioner which provides for recovering differential cost on resale towards loss caused to the Government. The petitioner after accepting the provision contained in the tender condition for liquidated damages, has no right to question it. Since the loss computed is based on tender conditions accepted by the petitioner, there is no scope for interference with the amount demanded in terms of the contract accepted by the petitioner. Even though counsel relied on Division Bench decision of this court in BUILD TECH. INDIA V. STATE OF KERALA (2000(2) KLJ 142) and contended that officer of the Government cannot determine damages for breach of contract, the said decision has no application because tender condition in the purchase order accepted by the petitioner provides for fixation of liquidated damages which does not require any adjudication at all. Accordingly this contention also is rejected. However, since the matter is delayed for long, I waive interest on the amount payable by the petitioner provided petitioner remits the balance amount after adjusting payments already made before 3 30.11.2008. However, if payment is not made by then, recovery will be made with interest. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms