Skip to content


Akhtar Khan Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Jabalpur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 451 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972MP154
ActsMadhya Pradesh Forest Contract Rules - Rules 8 and 29(2)
AppellantAkhtar Khan
RespondentDivisional Forest Officer, Jabalpur and ors.
Appellant AdvocateD.M. Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.V. Tamaskar, Dy. Govt. Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - under rule 8 of the forest contract rules, whenever the divisional forest officer considers that the value of the forest produce removed by a contractor exceeds the amount of the instalments already paid, he has a right to order stoppage of further removal of material from the forest till the deficiency is made good to his satisfaction. this rule does not require that the divisional forest officer can order stoppage of further removal only after he has served a notice intimating the contractor what is the amount in deficiency and in spite of such information the deficiency is not made good......30th november 1970 that further extraction of wood from the forest was stopped under rule 8 of the forest contract rules until the deficiency was deposited. on the very next date, the second instalment became due and the petitioner not having paid that amount, a further notice was served on him that the instalment had become due. further instalments not having been paid, the agreement was terminated under rule 29 (2) of the forest contract rules. against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed.2. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the department did not inform the petitioner as to what was the amount to be deposited on payment of which he would be permitted to take out the wood. the stoppage of taking out the wood was, therefore, illegal and, by.....
Judgment:

Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.

1. This is a writ petition by a forest contractor who had taken a forest coupe in auction on 11th August 1970. He had to pay the consideration of Rs. 9,000/- in four instalments of Rs. 2,250/- each. The first instalment was paid and the second Instalment was due on 1st December 1970. The Divisional Forest Officer inspected the coupe on 23rd November 1970 and found that the petitioner had extracted wood of the value much more than what he had deposited by way of instalment. Consequently, a notice was served on him on 30th November 1970 that further extraction of wood from the forest was stopped under Rule 8 of the Forest Contract Rules until the deficiency was deposited. On the very next date, the second instalment became due and the petitioner not having paid that amount, a further notice was served on him that the instalment had become due. Further instalments not having been paid, the agreement was terminated under Rule 29 (2) of the Forest Contract Rules. Against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Department did not inform the petitioner as to what was the amount to be deposited on payment of which he would be permitted to take out the wood. The stoppage of taking out the wood was, therefore, illegal and, by this illegal act of stoppage, the respondents incapacitated the petitioner from making payments of the second and the subsequent instalments. Consequently, the respondents did not get the right to terminate the contract because the breach on the part of the petitioner was due to the illegal act of the respondents.

3. We are unable to agree with any of these contentions. Under Rule 8 of the Forest Contract Rules, whenever the Divisional Forest Officer considers that the value of the forest produce removed by a contractor exceeds the amount of the instalments already paid, he has a right to order stoppage of further removal of material from the forest till the deficiency is made good to his satisfaction. This rule does not require that the Divisional Forest Officer can order stoppage of further removal only after he has served a notice intimating the contractor what is the amount in deficiency and in spite of such information the deficiency is not made good. As soon as the notice dated 30th November 1970 was served on the petitioner informing him that he had removed wood of the value of what he had deposited and, consequently, his further removal of wood was stopped, it was for him to approach the Department and know what was the deficiency in making the deposit. The second instalment was due on the very next date, that is, 1st of December 1970, and it was idle to suggest that because of stoppage of further removal on 30th November 1970, he became incapable of making the deposit of the 2nd instalment on the 1st of December 1970, because within one day he could not have extracted sufficient wood to enable him to recover its price for making the deposit of the second instalment.

4. Under the contract, the petitioner was bound to make the deposit of the second instalment on the date fixed and it was not conditional upon his being permitted to work out the whole of one section of the coupe before he was called upon to deposit the amount for the second instalment. The liability to deposit the instalment is absolute and this condition was broken when the instalment was not deposited in tune. We are, therefore, unable to say that the action taken by the Department was contrary to law.

5. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //