SURESH KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Technically what the petitioner impugns is a recovery certificate issued by the Tahsildar Karvi, Banda. This recovery certificate has been issued under Form-68 in the context of Rule 236 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. It is in effect a Criterion requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,21,245.50 p. failing which, by law, he would stand arrested until the demand under the certificate is satisfied not excluding other distress action by attachment of his property.

(2.) But the cause of action did not see its origin in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner made a bid in a public auction for collection of 'Tendu' leaves. The auction was held on 14-4-1985. The modalities of the auction were to be made in pursuance of the terms and conditions given in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 5-11985. On the bid being accepted, whatever be the amount, the terms and conditions as notified in the Gazette obliged the petitioner to execute an agreement within a period stipulated in clause 16(ka). The petitioner alleges that the respondents orginally arrayed were not fair in their intentions and changed the stipulated period provided in Clause 16(ka) from fifteen days to seven days and, thus, during the subsistency of the notification, the terms and conditions were changed. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court of being available to honour the contract of which he had made the highest bid and that he gave his letter dated 16-5-1985 to the Divisional Forest Officer, South Region, Panna, Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

(3.) Taking the period to respond on the obligation to offer an agreement in term of the Gazette notification, the petitioner alleges that the period was reduced, thus, circumstances were created that the petitioner was not coming forward to execute the agreement within the period so indicated in the notice and the respondents set about to re-auction the matter. The re-auction fixed a price lesser than the amount which the petitioner had offered. This difference is being realised from the petitioner. The petitioners says that he is not responsible nor obliged to make up the loss as he has no part in changing the terms and the conditions and the error of the respondent or the illegality whatever it might be is not of the petitioners making.