IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 167 of 2008 (M/S) M/s Ambika Varnish through its Proprietor Smt. Geeta Devi, W/O Sri Girish Chandra Kandpal, R/O Dolaghta, District Almora.. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Forest, Dehradun, and five others. … Respondents. Sri Pradeep Hairiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents-State. Date June 12, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (1) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to produce the entire record of the case and to quash the recovery citation dated 8-1-2008 (Annexure No.8) issued by respondent no. 6 and also to quash the reauction as contained in letter no. 17-10-2007 as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition issued by respondent no.4. (2) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to refund the security amount of Rs. 42,550.00 to the petitioner. (3) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. According to the petitioner, petitioner is proprietor of M/s Ambika Varnish having its office at Daulaghat, District Almora and it deals in the business of manufacturing goods, resin, 2 varnish and other allied products. Petitioner firm is registered under Section 10 of the U.P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trades) Act 1976 and is also registered Department of Industries, Uttarakhand. According to the petitioner an auction was held on 10- 5-2006 at Divisional Forest Office Bhowali wherein the petitioner was allotted 100 Qtls. of resin @ Rs. 4,255.00 per quintal vide allotment no. 300/2006. Total cost of the said resin allotted to the petitioner was Rs. 4,25,500.00. There was a condition in the auction sale that the payment of amount and other taxes payable by the purchaser shall be made by the purchaser within a periood of sixty days from the date of auction sale and if the payment is made within 30 days from the said period, no late fee shall be charged. It was further mentioned that if the payment is not made within a period of 90 days from the stipulated time, the auction sale of the lot shall be cancelled and the security amount deposited by the purchaser shall forfeited. It was also provided that if the subsequent auction-sale is held at a low amount than the previous auction consideration, the difference of the amount shall be recoverable from the previous auction purchaser. According to the petitioner, the auction was approved on 14-6-2006 and pursuant to the approval, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the auction-sale i.e. Rs. 42,550/- on due date. The petitioner could not lift the auctioned resin within the stipulated period due to some financial crisis. The Forest Range Officer, Lisa Depot Kathgodam by his letter dated 1-10-2006 demanded from the petitioner the late fee @ 2 paise per 100 Rupees per day. Subsequently, by letter dated 4-11-2006 (Annexure No. 3), the petitioner was required to pay the late fee @ 5 paise per 100 per day after expiry of 120 days, i.e. after 14-10-2006 and the petitioner was directed to lift the Lisa immediately. 3 The petitioner approached the authorities concerned and sought time for lifting of resin but no time was granted to the petitioner and ultimately, the petitioner made a representation to the Minister concerned by letter dated 22-11-2006 vide Annexure No. 4. Thereafter, the Conservator of Forest, South Kumaon, Nainital was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner, but nothing was done in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.4 vide its letter dated 20-8-2007 informed the petitioners as well as three other auction purchasers that the auction of lot of resin held on 10-5-2006 in favour of the petitioner as well as three others stood cancelled as the resin was not lifted within the stipulated time by them and the security amount was being forfeited vide Annexure No. 5. Subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer, Nainital Forest Division, Bhowali by its letter dated 17-10-2007 informed the petitioner that the lot of resin auctioned in its favour has been re- auctioned on 15-9-2007 and in re-auction, amount of Rs. 1,63,450- 00 had fallen short after deducting the security amount of Rs. 42,550-00, which is recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 15 days and a recovery citation was issued against the petitioner vide Annexure No.8. On behalf of the State-respondents counter affidavit has been filed and along with the counter affidavit a copy of order dated 29th August 2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been annexed as Annexure CA-8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents-State has urged that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29-08-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 758 (M/B) of 2001, M/s Bisht Resin Enterprises, Bejnath Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Pithoragarh. Learned 4 counsel has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has distinguished the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in A.I.R. 2000 Allahabad, Page 146. Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 3-5-2002. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that this Court has already held in the order dated 11-3- 2008 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2198 of 2007, M/s Himali Traders Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others that the condition no. 6(C) of the Auction-sale was an agreement between the parties. The facts of that writ petition are almost similar. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 11-3-2008 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2198 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this fact. In view of the order dated 11-3-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2198 of 2007, M/s Himali Traders Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the same terms. The writ petition is dismissed on merits in terms of order dated 11-3-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2198 of 2007, M/s Himali Traders Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6