Kerala High Court
Amel Imperaj vs The Divisional Foerest Officer, ... on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 14155 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
AMEL IMPERAJ, S/O.MOSES, AGED 30 YEARS,
MATHA TIMBER WORKS,EPI/511,B
VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.ABHILASH
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SRI.K.SIJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, RANNY,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672
2 CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (SF) VANASREE,
CHINNKKADA, KOLLAM 691 001
3 CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 696 014
4 ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
(PROTECTION) FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 696 014
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL GP SRI SANGEETH C U
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14155 OF 2013
- : 2 :-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner participated in the auction of the timber lots
conducted on behalf of the 3rd respondent at Angamoozhy in Ranny
Division, Ranny range of the Forest Department. He auctioned seven
lots of woods and paid an amount of Rs.2,43,000/- as EMD. Since
there was undue delay in confirming the sale, he gave a
representation on 04.03.2013 to the respondent No.4 to return the
EMD amount with interest. Immediately, he approached this Court
by filing writ petition as W.P.(C).No.6828 of 2013 on 11.03.2013. The
prayer in the writ petition was to give a direction to the respondent to
return the EMD amount of Rs.2,43,000/- with interest. The said writ
petition was disposed as per Ext.P1 judgment, with a direction to the
Chief Forest of Conservator, Thiruvananthapuram, to consider and
pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 05.02.2013 and
04.03.2013. Thereafter, those representations were considered by the
4th respondent and passed Ext.P2 order, rejecting the claim of the
petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached
this Court.
WP(C) NO. 14155 OF 2013
- : 3 :-
2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Special Government Pleader for Forest.
3. The auction was conducted on 08.05.2012. Admittedly the
petitioner remitted the amount of Rs.2,43,000/- as EMD. Ext.R1(c) is
the Tender cum Auction Notice. No time is prescribed in Ext. R1(c)
with regard to the period within which the auction is to be confirmed.
However, it is stipulated that the auction purchaser need to deposit
the balance amount only after the confirmation of the sale is
intimidated to him. Here, admittedly the sale was confirmed on
15.03.2013 only. It is evident from Ext.P5. Thus, there was a delay of
9 months in confirming the sale. The respondents in the counter
statement has admitted the said delay. According to them, the
ratification of the Government in confirming the sale was necessary
and the Government took nine months to ratify sale. Ext.R1(a) would
show that the Government ratified the auction sale only on
25.02.2013. Thereafter, the sale was confirmed only on 15.03.2013. It
is pertinent to note that even prior to the confirmation of the sale, the
petitioner gave two representations dated 05.02.2013 and 04.03.2013
(Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C). No.6828 of 2013) to the 4 th respondent,
WP(C) NO. 14155 OF 2013
- : 4 :-
requesting to return the amount since there was delay to confirm the
sale. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court on 11.03.2013,
by filing writ petition mentioned above seeking the very same relief. It
was thereafter only the respondents confirmed the auction sale. Thus,
there was absolutely no fault on the part of the petitioner. On the
other hand, there was undue delay on the part of the respondents in
confirming the sale. Admittedly, the woods auctioned by the
petitioner was re-auctioned and sold. There is nothing on record to
show that the respondents have sustained any loss. In these
circumstances, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that the
EMD amount stands forfeited. They are bound to return the same to
the petitioner.
In the light of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed
and the respondents are directed to return the EMD amount of
Rs.2,43,000/- to the petitioner without interest.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
WP(C) NO. 14155 OF 2013
- : 5 :-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14155/2013
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO
6828/2013 DATED 1-4-2013
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-05-
2013 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN DATED 10-05-
2012 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
RS.2,43,000/-
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-03-
2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO QC1-2975/12
DATED 29-04-2013
EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WOODS
WHICH WOULD SHOW THE PRESENT CONDITION
OF THE LOTS AUCTIONED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
PUBLISHED IN MALAYALAMANORAMA DAILY
DATED 22.12.2013.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) THE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.85/2013/FOREST
AND WILDLIFE, DATED 25.02.2013.
EXHIBIT R1(B) THE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.QC1-
2975/12,DATED 11.03.2013.
EXHIBIT R1(C) THE COPY OF NOTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF
THE AUCTION NO.A2-1502/12 DATED
20.03.2012 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA
GAZETTE NO.16, DATED 17.04.2012.
WP(C) NO. 14155 OF 2013
- : 6 :-
EXHIBIT R1(D) THE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.PRO.5-
4668/2011 DT.7.12.2011 PUBLISHED IN THE
KERALA GAZETTE NO.50 DT. 20.12.2011
EXHIBIT R1(E) THE COPY OF UNDERTAKING EXECUTED BY THE
PETITIONER PRIOR TO PARTICIPATING IN THE
AUCTION.
