B. R. Gavai, J. - (1.) By way of present petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction to the State Government to refund the amount of Rs. 30. 30 lacs to the petitioner on account of the shortfall in the extracted bamboo vis-a-vis the estimated notional tonnage specified in the tender notice. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the letter - Annexure E by which the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner, for refund of the said amount.
(2.) Though the petitioner has prayed for order directing refund, during the arguments advanced before us the learned counsel for the petitioner has basically challenged the validity of the condition in the tender notice which provides that in case the actual yield is less than the estimated yield, the purchaser will not be entitled to any refund due to loss in yield. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition, in brief, are as under : that vide notice dated 11th January, 1989 the respondent No. 3 invited tenders for sale of Flowered Bamboos and Nistar Felling Series Bamboos in central Chanda Forest Division, Sironcha Division and Bhamragarh Forest division. The said tender notice was published on 18th January, 1989. According to the said notice the last date for submission of the tenders was 31st January, 1989. In pursuance of the tender notice the petitioner submitted his tender bid and offered a price of Rs. 913/- per notional ton. It is pertinent to note that, the tender notice itself was invited for notional yield (approximately) and it was also provided in the tender notice that the highest bidder will have to deposit in advance the total amount worked out by multiplying the notional yield into the offer price so also the Sales Tax and the Forest Development Tax on the said yield.
(3.) It is undisputed that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the units in question. The petitioner accordingly paid the amount of Rs. 1,11,25,746/- for the notional yield of 10. 784 tons. After the Bamboos were fell and lifted by the petitioner it was noticed that out of 4 units, there was a surplus of 122.385 tons in detachali unit. However, it was noticed that there was a shortfall of 2842.990 tons in Jamalgatta unit of 39.325 tons in Sironcha unit and shortfall of 54.43 tons in Asarali unit. Thus, deducting the surplus in Detachali unit there was shortage of total 2936.745 tons in respect of the aforesaid four units. The petitioner therefore addressed a communication dated 10-5-1990, to respondent No. 3, thereby seeking refund of the amount towards the aforesaid shortfall in the actual yield of bamboo. However, the respondent No. 3 rejected the said claim of the petitioner on the ground that under the tender terms and conditions, the petitioner was not entitled for the refund on account of shortfall in the quantities given in the Schedule 'a'. It was also the ground for rejection that the intending tenderers were advised to inspect on the spot the bamboo units and satisfy themselves regarding the estimated yield in the area concerned. Petitioner addressed further communication for reconsideration of the decision. However, since there was no response from the respondents, petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition.;