MAHBSHWARI, J. - (1.) The appellants- State of Rajasthan and others have submitted this appeal against the order dated 28-11-1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 86/1986 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the demand notice Annex. 13 and directed the State Government to deposit the amount of Rs. 29,627/- received from the petitioner in the welfare fund at the disposal of the Chief Minister.
(2.) The matter pertains to the attempted recovery towards alleged breach of contract by the writ petitioner-Nathulal. Brief facts, leading to the present appeal are that the appellants issued a notice inviting offers for the contract of collection of Tendu leaves in different forest areas. The invitation was issued on 30-1-1973 (Annex. R/l) fixing the date of auction as 22-2-1973. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the bidders for the area of erstwhile Birjoliya Jagir falling in Mandalgarh range of Forest Division, Chittorgarh for the season of 1973. The petitioner gave highest bid for the said area for Rs. 51,100/-. The bid amount was recoverable in four equal instalments of Rs. 12,775/- each. It is also not in dispute that on the very day of the auction i.e. 22-2-1973 itself, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 29,627/- comprising of Rs. 25,550/- towards two instalments, Rs. 500 /-as earnest money and Rs. 3577/- towards sales tax. An agreement was also executed by the petitioner (Annex.1) on 22-2-1973 confirming the terms and conditions of the contract which provide inter alia that the possession of the area contracted would be delivered to the contractor by the Officer of the Department upon acceptance of the contract.Laying down different conditions to be followed by the contractor while executing the contract, it was also provided that the contractor would be required to make payment by way of four instalments. The terms and conditions also provide that if there be any dues remaining against the contractor, then the Government would be entitled to recover such amount in accordance with Sec. 85 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. It was also provided that for interpretation of any of the conditions of the agreement or for determination of the questions which may be related to the agreement directly or indirectly or in case of the dispute or difference, then every such question would be placed before the Chief Conservator of Forest and his decision would be final and binding. It was also provided that in case of violation of any of the terms of the agreement, the contract could be annulled and if the contract be put to fresh auction and bid received be falling short, then the difference could be recovered from the contractor as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) The petitioner alleged that despite conclusion of the auction on 22-2-1973, no acceptance of the bid was received by him till 20-5-1973 and possession was also not delivered. The petitioner alleged that the contract in question was a seasonal business and the collection of Tendu leaves start from 1st March every year and the Tendu leaves are to be collected within a month or two and by the month of May, the entire leaves are wasted. According to the petitioner, when he did not receive any information by 20-5-1973 he sent a communication on 21-5-1973 addressed to all concerned pointing out that the season was already over and as such he was not prepared to do anything now in pursuance to the contract and his deposit may be refunded. The petitioner has alleged that after receipt of his such letter, an ante-dated letter (Annex. 6) was sent to him by the department which was of course dated 21-5-1973 but was dispatched only on 23-5-1973 after receipt of his letter and in support of such averment, the original envelop has been produced as Annex. 7. The petitioner alleged that despite no contract having been given to him, the order was passed by the non-petitioner No. 3 Divisional Forest Officer forfeiting the deposit and demanding the remaining amount and against such demand, he appealed to the non-petitioner No. 2 Chief Conservator of Forest on 6-4-1976 but the non-petitioner No. 2 without applying mind and without considering the record rejected the appeal by his order dated 9-12-1985 (Annex. 12). The petitioner alleged that after rejection of his appeal, the non-petitioners threatened recovery under Public Demands Recovery Act (PDR Act). The petitioner challenged the notice dated 26-12- 1985 (Annex. 13) and the previous orders Annexs. 8, 9 and 12 by way of writ petition.;