Case: Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc Vs. Conservator Of Forests, Jammu &amp; Ors. Etc

These are three appeals by certification against the judgment o f a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, allowing appeals from the judgment of a learned single Judge. Jammu and Kashmir Government had filed three applications under section 20 of the Jammu &Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002, to refer disputes arising out of three agreements between it and the appellant Company to arbitration under the arbitration clauses of agreements between the parties. The applications had been dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the arbitration clause was, in each case, a part of an agreement which was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 122(1 ) of the Constitution of Jammu &Kashmir which correspond to those of Article 199(1) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench had allowed the appeals of the Conservator of Forests, Jammu Circle, after holding t hat the provisions of section 122(1) of the Constitution of Jammu &Kashmir could not be said to have been infringed if contracts were signed by the Conservator of Forests in compliance with an order of the Government.

Reasoning:
The learned Chief Justice had observed that these orders, purporting to ratify the leases which were valid, did not have any legal effect whatsoever and were unnecessary. If there had been any question to be decided as to whether the Government had sanctioned the leases, its actions, apart from the execution of leases, could be considered. But, once there has been a valid execution of leases by duly authorised officers, the documents would be the best evidence of sanction also. That was one of the objects of. prescribing a formal mode of execution of instruments on behalf of the Government apart from the need to protect its interests againstand other un authorised acts of its servants or agents as indicated by this Court in Mulam Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh ([1968] 3S.C.R. 214.) In the cases before us the only question which needed decision was whether formal execution of the leases by duly authorised officers had been proved. We are of opinion that the Conservator of Forests was, for the reasons given by us, duly authorised to execute the leases. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the Division Bench so that matters in dispute between the parties could be validly referred to Arbitration under the appropriate clauses of the agreements.