GANDHI ROAD LINES Vs. COLLECTOR OF BANASKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A partnership firm carrying on business of transport filed a writ petition in this court challenging the order of forfeiting the deposit by an order dated 24.1.1986 passed by the Collector. Learned Single Judge considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, dismissed the same vide order dated 7.9.1987. Hence present appeal.

(2.) The appellant and the Banaskantha Jill Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh ( hereinafter referred to as the Sangh ) entered into an agreement on 5.6.1984 at Palanpur. The State Government was allocating quota of sugar and sugar products for proper distribution thereof in the districts of the State. From the preamble of the contract, it appears that transporter-appellant was entitled to get transport charges of sugar per kilometer per ton. Six slabs are stated in the preamble for different charges according to the distance. As per the conditions, the appellant was required to lift sugar from the factory situated within the State of Gujarat or from any other place or from the godown and was required to supply at various shops and/or godowns of Nominee. The appellant was also required to see that the quota of sugar allocated is not lapsed. Condition No. 2 of contract provided for a dispute with regard to the charges to be paid considering the distance and that the decision of the Collector shall be final. Condition No.6 of the contract fastened the appellant with liability if damages are suffered by the nominee. The appellant if not transporting the sugar as agreed, the nominee was required to purchase sugar from open market and was required to get it transported, and the appellant was liable to pay the entire amount with costs. Condition No.13 provided for forfeiture of the amount deposited either in part or in full by the Collector.

(3.) Appellant annexed Annexure:B along with the petition, inter alia, pointing out that a notice was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the amount should not be recovered from him and why it should not be adjusted from the deposit, on the ground that as per condition no.1, though the appellant was required to lift sugar from the factory situated within the State of Gujarat or out side the State of Gujarat or from any godown,in November 1984, the appellant refused to transport levy sugar from the godown situated at Kandla. It appears that appellant stated that the market rate being 0.36 ps. per kilometer per ton, he would lift only if that rate is offered. In September 1984 also, as he failed to lift and transport sugar, by paying higher charges, the same was transported. In the notice, it was also pointed out that the appellant entered into similar contracts for transporting the sugar to other districts at the same time and he was transporting from Kandla.