- (1.) This special leave petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla in Civil Review No. 10 of 1991 passed on December 13, 1991. On the said special leave application notice was issued limited to the extent, namely, whether the petitioners are entitled to the pro rata quantity of resin supplied for distribution. It may be stated here that the Review application being Review No. 10 of 1991 was filed by the petitioners in the Himachal Pradesh High Court in connection with the Judgment dated April 10, 1991 passed by the said High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979. By the aforesaid Order dated April 10, 1991, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition moved by the petitioners. The petitioners filed the Writ-Petition in the High Court inter alia contending that despite solemn assurance given by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the petitioners that they would be supplied 750 metric tonnes of resin if they would establish a factory at Himachal Pradesh where such resin would be required for manufacturing purpose, the State Government failed and neglected to supply such quantity of resin to the petitioners when the petitioners had in fact established such factory by incurring substantial expenses. Such contention of the petitioners was, however, opposed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and it was inter alia contended that there was no such solemn assurance to supply 750 metric tonnes of resin to the petitioners annually for a period of ten years from 1972 as contended but it was decided that such supply should be made subject to the availability of resin. It was contended by the State Government that as gradually the production of resin declined and it was not possible even to meet the requirement of the establishments of the Forest Corporation of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it was not possible for the State Government to supply 750 metric tonnes of resin to the petitioners and the Government also had not been able to supply the desired quantity of resin to other producers and there had been cut in supply of resin to other producers and manufacturing units of the State. It may also be stated here that on the allegation that the petitioners failed and neglected to lift resin offered to them by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners' unit at Himachal Pradesh was de-registered and such action of de-registration was also challenged by the petitioners in the writ proceedings. As Aforesaid, the High Court in disposing of the writ proceedings allowed the Writ Petition in part inter alia quashing the order of de-registration of the petitioners unit and the High Court also directed to take proper decision on for issuing genuineness certificate to the petitioners for the purpose of claiming exemption of taxes. The High Court also gave a direction that the respondents would supply to the petitioners in future the raw material, namely, the resin subject to the availability of such resin.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the later direction of the High Court to supply resin subject to the availability and not accepting the case of the petitioners that 750 tonnes would be supplied to the petitioners, a Review Application was filed by the petitioners for taking note of a particular document which according to the petitioners could not be made available at the time of hearing and the contents of the said document had clearly supported the case of the petitioners that there was a solemn assurance to supply 750 tonnes of resin to the petitioners. Such Review Application was, however, rejected by the High Court by noting that the communication sought to be relied upon by the petitioners in support of the application had already been taken note of and the Writ Petition was disposed of on consideration of such document.
(3.) As already stated, the special leave application was filed against the rejection of the Review Application and the limited notice as indicated hereinbefore was issued by this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the special leave application and it has been specifically stated in such counter-affidavit that there has been steady decrease in the production of resin and it has been stated that in the year 1972-73 when 16.75 lacs blazes were available for tapping from the government forests then subject to availability, 750 tonnes of resin was decided to be supplied to the petitioners. But in the year 1990 the total number of blazes for tapping were only about 15.58 lacs which were hardly sufficient to meet the demand of even the factories run by the Forest Corporation of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It has been further stated that as a matter of fact, the resin from the government forests tapped by the Forest Corporation is at present being used by the factories of Forest Corporation at Nahan and Bilaspur. It has also been contended that at no point of time, there was any such firm assurance giver to the petitioners that 750 tonnes of resin was to be supplied to the petitioners every year. It was made clear that the intended supply of 750 tonnes was subject to the availability and as a matter of fact when lesser quantities had been supplied to the petitioners on earlier occasions, the petitioners had not raised such contention that there was such solemn assurance to supply 750 tonnes without any condition imposed. It was only at a later stage, the petitioners started making such contentions.;