AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.
The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he has taken on lease the compartments from the respondents for extraction of various kinds of
timber. The said compartments were :
(a) Bhalesh Compartment No: 36
(b) Ramban Compartment No. 24
(c) Neeru Compartments Nos. 30A and B
(d) Dachan Compartment No. 30F
(e) Ramban Compartment No. 62.
The lease deeds were duly executed between the petitioner and the respondents in respect of the aforesaid compartments. It is further stated by
the petitioner that in respect of the abovesaid five compartments, the petitioner had deposited Fixed Deposit Receipts as securities against the
amount shown against each namely :
1.Dachan 30FRs. 50,920.00
Bhalesh 36Rs. 40,360.00
3.Neeru 30 A and BRs. 55,020.00
Ramban 24Rs. 72,870.00
5.Ramban 62 Rs. 38,900.00
Total: Rs. 2,58,070.00
The petitioner further states that the aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipts are still lying with the respondents and that these amounts were deposited
at the time of execution of original Lease Deeds. The petitioner further states that the said amount has been shown as security deposit under Clause
8 of the Agreement which was executed in pursuance of Govt. Order No. FST205 of 1984. It is further averred by the petitioner that he has
completed the entire work in respect of all the aforesaid five leases and nothing remains to be done in respect of any one of them and that there is
no amount outstanding against the petitioner whatsoever in respect of the aforesaid five leases, and because of the total and complete performance
of the contract in respect of its terms and conditions, the petitioner claims refund of these securities/fixed deposit lying with the respondents in
respect of five compartments, enumerated hereinabove.
4A. The respondents on the other hand have filed their detailed objections supported by an affidavit stating therein that the amount which has been
rendered by the petitioner is to secure security from him and these FDRs are kept by the Forest Department as Security Deposit. The lessees, as
per averments of the respondent, Forest Department, are allowed to leases subject to securities and payments of royalty. On the completion of the
leases, royalty position and full payment is taken into consideration, thereafter securities are released to the respective contractors.
It is also averred that the lessees have filed number of writ petitions before this Court and in the said writ petitions the subjectmatter of payment
of royalty is in dispute. Only when those writ petitions are decided that the payment/fixed deposit receipts could be released in favour of the
petitioner, and because the petitioner has disputed each and every lease before this Court, so various writ petitions which are subjudice before the
Court wherein the petitioners have disputed the entire rate differences, interest amount, surcharge amount etc. etc. and till the Hon'ble Court
decides the said litigation of the petitioners having subjectmatter of leases mentioned in the writ petition and also the royalty amount is liquidated by
the petitioner, the securities cannot be released in favour of the petitioner. So on that count the petition of the petitioner is premature and deserves
dismissal.
It is also pleaded and specific emphasis have been laid by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is nonState Subject and in the
event of releasing his securities which are assets with the departments, the respondents would be having no security towards the said leases in case
short royalty payment by the petitioner on the event of completion of leases and in the light of Hon'ble Court's judgment on the pending writ
petitions filed by the petitioner on the same subjectmatter of the said leases. So on that score also the petition is not maintainable.
It is also pleaded that usually the security deposits (FDRs) deposited with the department by the petitioner are being released along with interest
in favour of the respective contractors after leases are finalised. So in that view the security will be released after final picture emerges when this
Court decides the said writ petitions pending before this Court wherein the entire leases have been made subjectmatter by the petitioner.
Mr. Amresh Kapoor while projecting his arguments has drawn my attention to Clause 8 of the Agreement which has been executed in
pursuance of Govt. Order No. FST205 of 1984. In Clause 8 of the said agreement it is stipulated :
The security amount of Rs.Deposited by the lessee under receipt No. Dated:shall be deemed to be the security amount under this agreement and
shall not be taken into account in calculating the amount due to the lessees credit.
So it is in that context that the Fixed Deposits have been retained by the Forest Department as a security deposit against the leases of aforesaid
five compartments for which the petitioner has joined all sorts of disputes regarding the rate of royalty, surcharge etc. and are pending before this
Court. So without the decision and final outcome of those writ petitions and in the light of the fact that the petitioner before this Court is not a State
Subject, in case his fixed deposits are released as per his averment before concluding and before decision of those writ petitions which are
pending, there is no security at all on behalf of the petitioner. Neither moveable nor any immoveable property of the petitioner is situated within the
territorial jurisdiction of the State except the security/FDRs which are available to respondent, Forest Department. So the prayer of the petitioner
as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent is no doubt not justifiable at this stage as other litigation of the petitioner arising out of the said
leases is still pending before the Court.
So the petition is being dismissed as premature. The petitioner no doubt will have a cause to agitate the matter before this Court and the same
will be taken into consideration, only after his other writ petitions arising out of the leases, of which the security/FDRs are being claimed to be
released by way of this petition, are decided by this Court.
So the petition is being disposed of accordingly.
I leave the parties to bear their respective costs.