A. MOHAMMED BASHEER versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 17-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, BRIJESH KUMAR, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A. MOHAMMED BASHEER 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
JULY 17, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., BRIJESH KUMAR AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Auction: Recovery of loss incurred due to re-auction because of non-
payment of bid amount by former bidder-Public auction for right to collect 
C and remove residual of tree growth and fire wood in a forest range-Knocked 
down in favour of appellant-Before confirmation of bid fire broke in forest 
concerned wherein some of forest produce destroyed-Appellant's claim for 
a reduction in bid amount not accepted, his bid confirmed and he was 
required to deposit the entire bid amount-Appellant did not deposit the 
amount -Re-auction conducted, but this time for a lesser amount-Appellant 
D was asked to pay the differential amount by way of damages-Appel/an/ 's 
writ petition before High Court dismissed-Held, the question as to whether 
there is a breach of terms of the notice inviting tender or not should be 
adjudicated by an authority declared to be competent therefor-In a case 
where there is a dispute as to whether a damage has occurred, a finding of 
E fact in that behalf must be arrived at by the competent authority, whereafter 
the amount of damages should be quantified-Such quantification of damages 
must also be in consonance with the terms of the relevant rules-There was 
only a bid for removal of residual tree growth and fire wood, a substantial 
part of which was destroyed in fire-It is under such circumstances, the 
appellant wrote to the Divisional Forest Officer for cancellation of his bid 
F or reduction of the bid amount-Appellant sought reduction in money offered 
by him as a result of a subsequent event which was a 'vis-major '-No 
concluded contract, thus, could come into effect and under such circumstances, 
the question of realisation of shortfall in the form of damages does not 
arise-Order of High Court set aside-Subsequent event. 
G 
Sp!. Dy. Tehsildar, Manjeri v. Kunju Moideen, (1980) KL T 850, approved. 
H 
Abdul Rahiman v. Divisional Forest Officer, (1988) 2 KL T 290, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3948 of 1994. 
580 
A. M. BAS HEER v. STATE 
581 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2. 7 .1993 of the Kerala High Court A 
in 0.P. No. 6135of1981-F. 
Ms. Malini Poduval for the Appellant. 
Ms. Karthika Sukumaran, N.R. Shonker and N. Sudhakaran for 
Respondent No. 2. 
K.R. Sasiprabhu (N.P.) for the State. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
The Forest Department in the State of Kerala decided to auction the C 
right to collect and remove the residual of the tree growth and fire wood in 
sub-coupe No. 9 in Coupe No. 3, Pathanamthitta Range by means of public 
auction and the auction was fixed on 8th February, 1979. On that day, the 
appellant offered a bid for a sum of Rs. 3 ,00, I 00. Before the bid was con finned, 
it is alleged that a fire had broken out in the forest, with the result the residual 
tree growth and fire wood was destroyed. The appellant herein wrote a letter D 
to the respondents demanding reduction in the money offered by him. Despite 
that letter, the Managing Director confinned the bid of the appellant and 
called upon him to produce the stamp paper for executing the necessary 
agreement and further to deposit Rs. 3,00, I 00 over and above the deposit 
already made by the appellant. Since the appellant did not deposit the money E 
as directed by the Managing Director, the respondent re-auctioned the 
remaining residual tree growth and fire wood for a sum of Rs. 2,00,400. Since 
there was a shortfall of Rs. 1,21,439 the Managing Director wrote to the 
appellant to deposit the said amount by way of damages. It is under such 
circumstances, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution before the Kerala High Court. 
F 
The Kerala High Court in view of its Full Bench decision in the case 
of Abdul Rahiman v. Divisional Forest Officer, reported in (1988) 2 K.L.T. 290, 
dismissed the writ petition. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, 
the appellant is in appeal before us. 
Ms. Malini Poduval, learned counsel urged that the view taken by the 
High Court that the matter is covered by a Full Bench decision of the Kera la 
High Court is erroneous. She urged that the said decision is distinguishable 
and has no bearing in the present case. 
G 
H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
We find substance in the argument. In the present case we find that 
there was only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.