Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the auction notice dated 04.06.2014 published by the Deputy Commissioner of Forest, Tumakuru Division. Tumakura for cutting of the road side trees between Kms. 26 to 27 in Unit No. 19 between Tumakuru Unit Road and Kunigal Y.K. Ramaiah Circle. The petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to permit the petitioner to cut and remove the road side trees between Kms. 26 to 27 in Unit No. 19 referred to above.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are stated to have initially published a tender-cum-auction notice dated 22.09.2011 calling for respondents to remove the trees situated on the road side between Kms. 26 to 27 in Unit No. 19. The petitioner is stated to have participated in tin'', tender process and was successful. Accordingly, the petitioner through the receipt at Annexure-B has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,07,688/ on 09.11.2011. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was not permitted to cut and remove the trees subsequently since respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are stated to have informed the petitioner that there was an interim order granted by this Court in a public interest petition. The petitioner however contends that the said information to the petitioner was not the accurate information since what was considered in the said public interest litigation is relating to the road between Gubbi and Maddur.

In that light, it is contended that though the petitioner was entitled to cut and remove the trees, he was not permitted to do so on the wrong assumption, but respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have thereafter proceeded to issue a fresh tender notification dated 04.06.2014 in respect of the same work and awarded the work to respondent No. 4 thereby causing loss to the petitioner. Though in that regard the petitioner had filed an appeal, the same has been rejected by the order dated 11.12.2014. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers.

It is no doubt true that the petitioner had participated in response to the tender notification dated 22.09.2011 and the amount was deposited on 09.11.2011 amounting to Rs. 1,07,688/-. However, for not having cut and removed the trees, the explanation put forth by the petitioner is that he was informed that there was a stay order operating in the writ petition and the petitioner was waiting for such clearance to be obtained by the respondents. Though such contention is put forth, there is no material to indicate that such communication had been made to the petitioner.

Be that as it may, the respondents have subsequently issued a public tender notification dated 04.06.2014. Immediately when such notification was issued, the petitioner had not made out any grievance but has challenged the said notification for the first time by filing the appeal by which time the tender process had been completed and the work had been assigned to respondent No. 4. Therefore in such circumstance, the challenge to the said notification in the instant petition cannot be taken to its logical conclusion and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on the ground of delay.

Since pursuant to such tender notification, the work was assigned to respondent No. 4 and the trees already being cut and removed by respondent No. 4, restoring the said position to the petitioner would not arise at this juncture. However, in addition to refund of the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner, if tire petitioner has suffered loss on account of the action of the respondents and the petitioner was not responsible for the same, these are aspects which would have to be established by the petitioner and appropriate damages would be claimed from the respondents. Therefore the relief as sought in the petition cannot be granted.

However, the respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished. If the amount is not refunded within the time period stipulated, the amount would carry interest at 12% p.a. thereafter. Insofar as the loss if any suffered by the petitioner, in order to claim the same in an appropriate proceeding, liberty is reserved to the petitioner in that regard.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.