AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
i) A writ of the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order bearing SFC order No.57 of 2013 dated
7.3.2013.
ii) An appropriate writ commanding the respondents to act upon Management Decision No.13 of 2010 dated 21.7.2010 in so for it relates to
petitioner''s case and sanction and release the transport charges in respect of Compartment No.Rb-8 on the analogy of and at par with transport
charges sanctioned in Compartment No.12 along with interest thereon.
Petitioner claims to be a Contractor doing work of extraction and transportation of timber. He was allotted transportation work of
Compartment No.Rb-8. He completed the work and whatever amount was due to him has been paid and discharged. Similarly, another person
was given contract of Compartment Rb-12. He has also got the timber extracted and transported, for which service amount has been paid to him.
Earlier also the writ petitioner has filed writ petition seeking parity of payment for extraction and transportation of timber with Compartment
No.12,as for similar work in Compartment No.12 the Contractor has been given a higher rate. A direction was given by this Court to accord
consideration to the matter. The Committee, it appears, followed the directions and recommended that the parity should be given for transportation
of timber. However, the recommendation of the Committee was not accepted by the authorities. A rejection order was passed that was also
challenged by the petitioner and further direction was issued by the Court to the Managing Director to accord consideration. It appears that the
Managing Director directed the new Committee to go into the issue. The new Committee deliberated the opinion of the earlier Committee and the
claim of the petitioner for revision of rates on the analogy of Compartment No.12 was rejected, against which the present petition has been filed.
The writ petition was admitted but counter has not been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner as a matter of right, in law, cannot seek parity of payment between one compartment and the other compartment, because terms and
conditions are covered by the respective contracts. If there is no contract, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that it is on
Ammani basis, then the claim of the petitioner for parity of payment has to be considered in light of the opinion given by the Committee constituted
pursuance to the earlier orders of the Court.
In the present case problem arose because of variance in the report of two Committees. One report is dated 21.7.2010 and another report is of
the year 2013. As to which Committee report has to be accepted and acted upon, is a decision to be taken by the Managing Directorrespondent
No.1. Recommendation of the Committee is strong in nature.
Final decision has to be taken, therefore, at this juncture, in view of the dispute on quantum between the two Committees and since decision has
not been taken by the first respondent, it is the Court, who alone, has to check as to whether the transportation charges are paid at par with the
charges paid to the Contractor in respect of Compartment No.12.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of along with connected MPs with direction to the respondent No.1 to take a decision in this regard
based on the opinion of the two Committees within a period of two weeks from the date copy of this order is served on him. Petitioner shall also
be heard by first respondent before taking any final decision. Petitioner, if aggrieved is at liberty to challenge the same.