9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Contract for appropriation of Tendu Leaves, Recovery of unpaid instalments, Interpretation of Forest Act provisions, Validity of certificate proceeding.
Summary: 1. The appellant entered into a contract with the State of Bihar for Tendu Leaves appropriation, with payment in three instalments. Dispute arose when two instalments were unpaid, leading to recovery proceedings under Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, challenged in Article 226 proceeding before Patna High Court, which upheld the action, resulting in this appeal. 2. The appellant argued that the contract was rescinded, making the claim for damages, not the balance of the sale price. Contention was that Forest Act Section 82 did not apply, and recovery should be through civil action under Sale of Goods Act, deeming the summary procedure unauthorized. 3. Support for the appellant's stand was drawn from various High Court decisions, emphasizing the application of Sale of Goods Act provisions over Forest Act Section 83. However, the legislative intent behind Section 83 of the Forest Act was overlooked, which establishes the government's first charge on forest produce sold. 4. Section 83 of the Forest Act clearly outlines the government's priority charge on forest produce, authorizing sale by Forest Officer to satisfy debts. The special legislation under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act supersedes general laws like the Sale of Goods Act for forest produce contracts. 5. The contract in question contradicted the Forest Act's scheme, attempting to deny the contractor the right to claim excess money from subsequent sales, contrary to Section 83(3) provisions. The obligation is on the State to follow the special procedure provided by law in such transactions. 6. The Court held that the different High Courts' considerations regarding recovery of unpaid forest contract money, where Sections 82 and 83 apply, were not valid law. The demand for the third-year instalment, not yet due, could not be included in the recovery certificate, rendering the proceeding legally flawed. 7. As the appeal was under Article 226, the Court declined to interfere in a way that would unjustly benefit the appellant. The liability was confined to the two due instalments after adjusting the security deposit and recovered amounts. The Certificate Officer was directed to amend the certificate accordingly and proceed with recovery without imposing interest or additional charges until the modification.
|
