K.A. Patel and Sons and Others vs The State of Tamilnadu

K. Chandru, J.—In all these writ petitions the Petitioners, who are all authorised contractors, entered into a contract with the forest

department agreeing to supply all pine woods, wattle bark and debarked wattle wood. The contract was entered into between the District Forest

Officer on behalf of the State and the respective companies. The written contracts which are entered into from time to time are also enclosed in the

typed set of papers filed by the respective contractors.

However, the District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal, passed a proceeding holding that for a breach of contract in terms of the contractual

conditions, they have levied charges for the various produce and the administration charges as stipulated in condition number 38 of the written

contract, wherein it is merely stated that if the contractor fails to remove the allotted quantity in full, the cost of the debarked wattle wood and

wattle bark left unremoved will be assessed at the rate fixed by the Government for the produce with 5% administrative charges plus 13% penal

interest. Having agreed to the said term of the contract, the Petitioners cannot wriggle out of the contract by stating different reasons.

In one of the writ petitions, the grievance projected by the Petitioner, as per the letter addressed to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary,

Environment and Forest Department, Chennai, was that he could not remove the trees as per the stipulated condition due to natural calamity like

heavy rains and water flood. It is further stated that they also offered to pay the charges on extension of period.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also referred to another condition in the contract, wherein it is stated that if the extension to remove the tress

sought beyond the stipulated period is agreed by the Government, the contractors shall pay the rates that may be fixed by the Government for the

quantity removed beyond the stipulated period. However, as on date there is no order by the Government agreeing for any extension.

In one of the conditions numbering 31 it is specifically stated that once the area is notified to the Contractor, the forest department will not be

responsible for any damage by fire accident, cyclone, storm or illicit felling and due to any other means. Therefore, having bound by the terms of

the contract entered into between the District Forest Officer on behalf of the State on the one hand and the respective Petitioners on the other

hand, they cannot file a writ petition to seek improvement of the terms of the contract. If the Petitioners feel aggrieved by any one of the terms of

the contract, the remedy open to them is to file a civil suit and such contractual terms either breach or enforcement cannot be done in a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, the Petitioners were inspired by an Order passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 128 Environment and Forest (FR.4)

Department, dated 10.11.2008, wherein the Government given such a facility to M/s. Tamil Nadu News Print and Papers Limited. By that

Government Order the said Government Owned company granted some extension and therefore, the Petitioners, who are the private contractors,

seeking for such a prayer is misconceived. The claim of the private contractors cannot compared with the wholly owned Government company.

Even otherwise in the matter of exemption, there cannot be any parity by citing such Government Order. The Petitioners cannot get over the terms

of the contract entered into between the District Forest officer on behalf of the State and the Petitioners.

In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the Petitioners. The writ petitions are highly misconceived and bereft of any legal reasons.

The writ petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.