c éOr i: I J f OF JUDICATURE CHEATTISGARH A‘I r ‘ <‘ 4; aw} / iN THE HIGH COURT BILASPUR C. ‘ma ¢ W.P.No. ii‘vfnooz ‘ ”/1 Tribal Co-operative Malketing «Wk» Development Fedemtion ofvgdii Ltd., through its SrManager Shti 1S.K.Mishra S10 SDMishra, aged about 42 yams R/o Colkctorate premises Jagdalpur. Petitioner Chtmtisgarh Rajya Laghn Vampaj Vyapar Avum Vikas Sahakaxi Maxyadit through itS Managing Dilector, J-lO, AmpamNagar, Raipur (CG) ism ofcmmmsgarh drougl the Secretaxy/Forest Depamnent, DKS BmW‘Raipm — ( cs. ) WRIT PETITION UIA 226 i??? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W... _.y - ”A. , v Rv r Versus HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. P. No. 2133 of 2001 Petitioner The Tribal Co—operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Versus Respondents Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Vyapar Avam Vikas Sahkari Sangh Maryadit & another W. P. N0. 1145 of 2002 Petitioner The Tribal Co—operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Versus r Respondents Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Vyapar Avam Vikas Sahkari Sangh Maryadit 85 another WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226_L227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DB: Hon’ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, 85 Hon’ble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri Anand Dadaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Ravi Dutta, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.2 / State. ,0 R D E R (oral) ( Passed on this 6‘11 day of July, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. These are two Writ petitions. In Writ Petition No. 2133/2001 following relief was sought : “(i) That the Respondent No.1 be directed to sell 21,500 quintals of Myrobalan to the petitioner as per petitioner’s offer dated 30.4.2001 (Annemre-A—7) and 20.6.200 1‘ (Annexure-A— 1 0) ; (ii) The Respondent No.1 be directed not to dispose of or entire Myrobalan of good quality.as mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.9.2001 (Annexure —A-16); x / K (iii) The Respondent No.1 be directed to formally execute an agreement with petitioner in respect of 21,500 quintals of Myrobalan of good quality; (iv) The Respondent No.1 be directed not to charge any ‘Supervision Charges’ and interest because the same was not agreed by the petitioner; (v) The Respondent No.1 be directed to settle the entire claim of the petitioner including the 01d claim of various payments for which the petitioner has made attempt in its letter dated 1 1.10.2001 (Annexure-A-QO). ” 3. The Writ Petition No. 1145 of 2002 has been filed with the following reliefs : “7.1 It is reSpectfully prayed by the petitioner that the respondent no.1 be directed to immediately refund/return the amount of Rs. 30,00,000.00 which was deposited by the petitioner as earnest money for participating in the tender. 7.2 The respondent no.1 be directed to refund/return the amount of Rs. 30,00,000.00 alongwith an interest @ 18% on it. 7.3 The petitioner be suitably compensated by awarding the exemplary of Rs. 5,00,000.00 and the cost be directed to be given by the respondent no. 1. 7.4 The cost of the present writ petition be also awarded to the petitioner. ” 4. Since the matter relates to the contract and though a formal agreement was not performed but the questions are ; Whether the offer and acceptance would form a contract or not ? ; Whether the petitioner is entitled to get interest?, ; Whether the amount is liable to be adjusted towards other dues in other contract ? ; Whether without performing the ‘formal agreement the amount can be 4 adjusted towards penalties in other contract by the respondents ?, / L 1.1; A . “E ‘ Whether the adjustment towards Rs.30 Lacs of Rs. 19.35 Lacs would be proper and if so, whether the petitioner would be entitle to get rest of the amount ? and; What Rules were applicable ? 5. In the instant case disputed question of facts are involved which cannot be decided in the writ petition as it would require recording of evidence. Therefore, we dispose of these writ petitions with a liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit, if they are so advised. 6. With a view to get the benefit of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, it is to be noticed that the 'Writ Petition No. 2133/2001 was filed on 15.10.2001 and remained pending till date. The Writ Petition No. 1145/2002 was filed on 15.6.2002 and remained pending till date. Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. We direct that the Civil Court, having jurisdiction over the matter shall grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner, as learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondents will not oppose the relief on the ground of limitation. 7. Needless to mention that all the issues involved in the matter will be decided by the Civil Court, in case a civil suit is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided without being influenced by any of the above observations. 8. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ‘ i Sdl- Sd/— i i I.M.0uddusi :5 N.K. Agrawal V ‘ Judge i Judge makm