DIVL. FOREST OFFICER versus MOOL CHAND SAROUGI JAIN

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 06-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

298 
DIVL. FOREST OFFICER 
v. 
MOOL CHAND SAROUGI JAIN 
)pnuary 6, 1971 
A 
(J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
B 
Assant Forest Regulation VII of 1891. Rules made under-Rule 10 
scope of. 
' 
The Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup Division Assam invited tenders for 
the jlllrchase of m,onopoly rights to quarry stone for the period July 1, 1963 
to June 30, 1964. The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted 
and for the mihimum quantity of 1,25,000 c.ft. of stone allotted to the res-
C 
pondent he was to pay R$. 31,250/-. 
On appeal being filed against the 
order accepting the tender the Government of_Assam granted stay of the 
order. 
When three months later the appeal v.•as dismiss'cd for non.prosecu-
tion the respondent declined to accept settlement of the quarry. 
Thereafter 
tenders had to be invited again and it was only on January 10, 1964 that 'l 
settlement was made for a minimum quantity of 5000 c.ft. for'the period 
from January 25, 1964 to June 30, 1964 for Rs. 10,000. • The Divisional 
Forest Officer then sought to recover the amount of Rs. 31,250/- for .which 
D 
the tender of the respondent was accepted as arrears of ]and revenue in the 
manner provided by s. 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891. 
The iespondent moved a petition in the High Court for an order quashing 
the proceeding for recovery of the amount demanded. 
The High Court 
allo\ved the petition holding that the amoun' claimed was not recoverable 
under the aforesaid Regulation. The State of Assam appealed to this Court 
\Vith certificate. -It w~s conceded that the amount was 
not recoverable 
undef- s. 75 of the Regulation but reliance was placed on Rule ·10 of the 
E 
rules made under the Regulation. 
HELD : The appeal must fail. 
Rule 10 docs not a!Sply to recovery of the amount alleged to be clue 
for failure to carry 
out the obligations of tho 
tender by proceeding~ 
under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891. It is again difficult to hold 
that 'stone' is forest produce within 
the meaning of the Act. In any 
event the Rule poes not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of money. 
It merely imposes a limitation upon the power of the officers of the 
Forest Department to grant leases in respect of certain forest produce. 
The lease may not be granted except in accordance with the general or 
special order of the conservator who alone is empowered to authorise a 
sale in respect of such a lease. [300 E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 595 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 28, 1966, of 
the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 242 of 
1964. 
Naunit Lal. for the appellants. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
FOREST OFFICER v. MOOL CHAND (Shah, C.J.) 
29!!· 
The Judgment of the Court was' delivered by 
Shah, C.J. 
The Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup· Division,. 
Assam invited tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to 
quarry stone from certain areas, including Harengi Stone Quarry 
Mahal, for the period July 1, 1963 fo June 30, ! 964. 
Moo! 
Chand Sarougi-hereinafter called 'th.e .respondent' submitted a 
tender accompanied by. the requisite deposit of Rs. 100/- as ear-
nest money, and offered the rate of RS. 5.25 per rupee of royalty. 
The tender, submitted by the respondent was accepted and for the 
minimum quantity of 1,25,000 c. ft. of &tone allotted to the respon-
dent out of the quarry he was to pay Rs. 31,250/-. Intimation 
of acceptance of the tender W?' <!iven to the respondent on July 
13, 1963. 
One Baputi Ram, a member of a scheduled tribe, appealed 
against the order of the Divisional Forest Officer accepting the 
tender, to the Government of Assam and obtained a stay order. 
After about three months he declined to prosecute the appeal and 
his appeal was dismissed. 
The , respondent then declined to· 
accept the sett~ment of the quarry. 
The Divisional Forest Officer invited fresh 
tenders. 
The 
offers· made were not however accepted and tenders were invited 
again. c- On January!O, 1964 a settlement was made for a mini-
mum quantity of 50,000 c. ft. for the period fro1,11 
January 25, 
1964 fo June 30, 1964 for Rs. 10,000/-
The Divisional Forest Officer, thereafter, sought to recover 
the amount of Rs. 31,250/ - for which the tender of the responl 
dent was accepted aa arrears of land .revenue in the manner pro- . 
vided bys. 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891. The 
respondent then mov

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