SHATRUGHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who entered into a contract for purchase of Tendu leaves with the Respondents, seeks quashing of the notice dated 27-6-1982 (Annexure "8" to the writ petition) whereby the was called upon to pay the entire purchase price, i.e. Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 4,000/- towards the sales tax.

(2.) Admittedly, Petitioner's tender for purchase of Tendu leaves for Rs. 50,000/- in regard to Unit No. 40 Donda Block, Markundi Range, for the year 1980 had been accepted by the Respondents and the Petitioner then deposited Rs. 15,000/- with the Divisional Forest Officer as security The Petitioner executed an agreement in the prescribed form in the month of April, 1980 It is averred that tenders are usually invited in the month of January on the basis of the estimated yield of the next preceding years and that plucking season starts in the month of May. It is contended by the Petitioner that having entered into contract for purchasing Tendu leaves he inspected the Unit No. 40 in the month of May and then he discovered that Tendu leaves were not at all available in the said Unit due to unprecedented drought and that fact was immediately reported by him to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Banda Division, Banda, by his letter dated 13-5-1980 (Annexure "1" to the petition). He also sent a copy of this letter to the Chief Conservator of Forest. Lucknow, and Conservator of Forest, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. He also requested thereunder to the authorities to inspsct the Unit No 40 to verify the fact, it is said that Sri K.K. Chaudhry, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Karvi, inspected the Unit No. 40 and he had accepted the contention of the Petitioner that no leaf worth manufacturing Bidi was available in the whole area and that his inspection report was forwarded by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Conservator of Forest with his letter dated 30 6 1980. A letter dated 5-7-1980 was addressed by the Conservator of Forest to the Divisional Forest Officer making certain enquiries in the matter. The Divisional Forest Officer sent a reply to the Conservator of Forest by his letter dated 9-7-1980 (Annexure "3" to the petition recommending that the Petitioner be exempted from paying the contract amount, as only 15% Tendu leaves were there in the Unit No. 40 as compared to the previous years and that quantity too was wholly useless for manufacturing Bidi As the Petitioner could not collect even a single leaf from the aforesaid Unit, he claimed refund of his security. The Petitioner made serious efforts to retrieve the earnest money, but the authorities, though accepted the fact that the Petitioner could not collect Tendu leaves at all from the Unit No 40, as the whole crop was adversely affected, eventually refused to refund the earnest money on the plea that there was no provision to refund the security. Not only the refund of earnest money was refused the Respondents by notice dated 27 6-1982 (Annexure '8' to the petition) called upon the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 000/-i.e., the purchase price of Tendu leaves, within a week failing which it was stated that his property, which was attached, would be sold to recover the purchase price This is ho v the Petitioner came up to this Court for quashing the aforesaid notice.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that the Petitioner entered into a contract for lumpsum and that he is absolutely liable to pay the purchase price regardless of the quantity or quality of Tendu leaves. It is said that all the orders were given opportunity to inspect the respective Units before filing tenders and that they made tenders only after having satisfied about the yield and quality of Tendu leaves. It is not denied that tenders were invited on the basis of quantity of Tendu leaves being estimated by the Department considering the yield of the respective areas in the preceding years. It is averred in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit that on the application of the Petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), Karvi, inspected the Unit in the first week of June, 1980, and he then stated that the Petitioner had started plucking the leaves in the concerned Unit, but stopped later. It is averred in paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner was informed of the decision of the Conservator of Forest. Bundelkhand Circle, U.P., Jhansi, who is the competent authority, that there was no provision of any rebate or exemption and that the Petitioner having entered into a contract was liable to pay the full purchase price, as he took the contract with the open eyes and having inspected the Unit No 40 before submitting the tenders.