DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER versus BISHWANATH TEA CO. LTD.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 05-05-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
662 
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER 
v. 
BISHWANATH TEA CO. LTD. 
May, 5, 1981 
[D.A. DESAI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226-Contractual obligations cannot be 
enforced by the writ jurisdiction-A company, being a juristic Person is not 
entitled to any of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19-Assam Land and 
Revenue Regulation-Settlement Rule 37,-Scope of-Interpretation of clause 2 
Part IV of Indenture lease. 
Respondent Tea Company took on lease land N.C. Tezalpatty No. 1 from 
the then Government. The lease was to b~ exploited for cultivation and raising 
tea garden, and was subject to conditions set out therein and generally to Assam 
Land and Revenue Regulation and the rules made thereunder. The respondent 
company sought permission from the appellant to cut 7,000 cubic feet of timber 
from Grant N.C. Tezalpatty No. 1 for utilising the same for building of staff 
and labourers' house as per clause 2 of Part IV of the lease dated 27-9-1932 and 
Rule 37 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations. Since the timber was 
required by the company for use in Partabghur and Dekorai tea estates which 
were outside Tezalpatty No. 1, the appellant demanded full royalty on timber 
cut, felled and removed. The company paid an amount of Rs. 7069.37 Paisc 
under protest and later filed a petition under Article -226 of the Constitution in 
the Assam High Court, praying for refund of the amount and for a mandamus 
directing the appellant for issuing permits without insisting on payment of royalty 
whenever timber was to be cut from the leased area for the purposes connected 
with the exploitation of the grant. 
The preliminary objection raised by the appellant that since the right claimed 
by the respondent flowed from the contract of lease such contractual right can 
only be enforced in civil court and .therefore cannot be gone into under Article 226 
was rejected by the Assam High Court. On merits, the High Court further held 
that as the grant of N.C. Tezalpatty No. 1 was in favour of the respondent, the 
company was entitled to cut, fell and remove timber from that grant area for its 
use covered either by the same area or in other tea gardens which a re outside 
the grant. The High Court made the rule nisi absolute and hence the appeal by 
special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Writ Petition on the allegation of infringement of funda-
mental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, at the instance of respon-
dent company alone was not maintainable for the reasons that : (a) a juristic 
person such as a corporation is not entitled to any of the freedoms guaranteed 
by Article 19 and here the respondent is a company incorporated under the 
Companies Act ; (b) Article 19(l)(g) guaranteed the fundamental freedom to a 
, 
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER V. BISHWANATH TEA CO. 
663 
citizen and the respondent being a company is not a citizen and (c) the share-
holders of a company alone can complain of infringement of their fundamental 
rights. [669 E-H, 670 A-CJ 
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. v. State of Bihar, [1950] S.C.R. 
869 ; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. 
The Commercial Tax Officer, 
Vishakhapatnam, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 99 and Benuott Coleman and Co. and Other 
v. Union of India and Others, [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757, followed. 
2:1. It is undoubtedly true that the High Court can entertain in its extra-
ordinary jurisdiction a petition to issue any of the prerogative writs for any other 
purpose. But such writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupport-
ed by law or even in respect of a Corporation where there is a denial of equality 
before law or equal protection of Jaw. The Corporation can also file a writ 
petition for enforcement of a right under a statute. Here, the relief claimed by 
the respondent was referable to nothing else but the terms of lease, namely, clause 
2 Part IV. The fact that this term is a mere reproduction of proviso to Rule 37 
of Assam Land and Revenue Local Rate Regulation but that by itself is not 
sufficient to cont~nd that what the respondent was doing was enforcing a 
statutory provision. The validity of regulations is not challenged. Therefore, the 
demand for royalty is supported by law. [670 C-F] 
2:2. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, a party 
complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if 
the contract is capable of being specifically pe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.