In a recent landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India, the case involving the Forest Department and contractors regarding the forfeiture of security amount has been settled. The Court’s decision sheds light on the significance of adherence to auction terms and timely communication with government departments. Read on to discover the key takeaways from this crucial ruling.
Facts
- Notice for sale auction was issued on 05.03.1998 inviting registered contractors
- Respondents offered highest bids for various lots on 27.03.1998
- Agreement executed between Appellant and Respondent for lot No 195 on the same date
- Divisional Forest Officer directed Respondent to deposit bid amount by 25.09.1998 and complete work by 08.10.1998
- Multiple notices issued to Respondent for non-compliance with deadlines
- Security amount forfeited and lot put to re-auction on 17.01.2000
- Writ Petition filed by Respondent challenging the security amount forfeiture
- Interim stay granted by the Court on the impugned order.
- High Court observed discrepancy in the conditions applied by the parties in the auction.
- Recovery sought from the contractors deemed illegal as per the applicable conditions of sale in 1997-98.
- Contractors not bound by the offer due to lack of communication within 40 days as per the terms of 1997-98.
- Court noted inconsistencies in the manuals published in 1980-81 and 1987-88 regarding the enforcement dates.
- Respondents relied on Clause 10 of 1980-81 for non-forfeiture of security amount.
- High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing refund of the forfeited amount.
- Appellants relied on Clause 10 of 1987-88 for approval of bids.
- Respondents argued non-binding nature of the auction offer due to lack of approval within stipulated period.
- Agreements executed based on conditions of sale manuals presented in court.
Also Read: Interpretation of Drawer Liability: Company vs. Authorized Signatory
Arguments
- Appellants argue that the Manual from 1987-88 is the relevant one for the case in 1997-98.
- If no communication is received within the specified period, approval of lots is deemed by the competent authority.
- Clause 10 (viii) was amended in the 1987-88 manual removing the condition of communicating approval within 40 days.
- In the absence of newer manuals, the 1987-88 manual prevails over the 1980-81 edition.
- Respondents are bound by the terms of the agreement dated 27.03.1998 after the auction proceedings.
- Condition No. 2-D of the agreement allows Forest Officer to cancel auction and forfeit security if installments are not deposited.
- The Forest Department will not be held responsible for any delays in receiving information.
- It is important for individuals to ensure timely communication with the Forest Department.
- Lack of timely information could impact decision-making and actions taken by the Forest Department.
Also Read: Land Dispute Case: Supreme Court Rules on Specific Performance and Compensation
Analysis
- High Court erred in considering over-writing without signatures as valid
- Manual for 1987-88 deemed to prevail over 1980-81 due to being latest edition
- Manual of 1987-88 introduced amendments in Clause 10 regarding contractor responsibilities
- Contractors had the liability to enquire about approval status as per the 1987-88 Manual
- Withdrawal from auction after executing agreement leads to consequences as per Clause 2-D
- Relevant considerations taken into account for final decision
- Repeated notices were sent to the Respondents to complete the work within a stipulated period.
- The Respondents failed to act despite the notices and only came forward after the security amount was forfeited.
- The non-diligent and lackadaisical approach of the Respondents was noted by the Court.
- The Court decided that the security amount deposited by the Respondents should rightfully be forfeited by the Appellants.
Also Read: City Manager Selection Dispute: Upholding Rules 2014 Over Executive Order
Decision
- The impugned order dated 11.01.2011 is set aside.
- The notice issued by the Appellants dated 17.01.2000 is upheld as valid.
- Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
- The appeal is allowed.
Case Title: CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR (2024 INSC 514)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007414-007414 – 2024
