LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus RAJA MAHENDRA PAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
A
v.
RAJA MAHENDRA PAL
MARCH 3l,"1999
[V.N. KHARE AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 and 226-Erstwhile ruler claiming
price for forest produce supplied to state forest corporation at rates f1Xed by
pricing committee as payable to government-High Court holc{ing erstwhile
ruler to be possessed of powers of government and issuing mandamus for C
payment to him of amounts claimed-Held, no statutory enforceable right
existed in favour of erstwhile ruler; claims related to exercise of sovereign
rights vested in State and could not be made by private citizen; mandamus
could not have been issued. ·
Administrative Law-Pricing Committee constituted for determining
price payable to government for supplies made to forest corporation--
Whether quasi judicial body whose decision co.uld be enforc;ed through writ
of mandamus-Held, Pr~cing Committee not a quasi judicial or statutory
body; its decision could not be given effect to by the High Court-Constitution
D
of India, Article 226.
E
Practice and pmcedure-Constitution, of India, Articles 21 and 226-
Writ petition by respondent er.stwhile ruler claiming price of forest produce
on basis of equality with State-High Court recognising and enforcing
respondent's right to livelihood under Article 21-Held, High Court wrongly
assumed jurisdiction; right to livelihood could not b..: expanded to include F
claims relating to contractual rights.
A notification was issued on August 31, 1915 by the Lt. Governor of
Punjab under Ss. 28, 29 (a) and 31 of the Indian Forests Act, 1878 whereby
the management of the Kutlehar forests was assigned to erstwhile rulers G
including MP, Respondent No.1. The rajas were to maintain proper account
of the trees standing on the land. Trees identified by the Forest Department
alone could be sold and only at the rates approved by the department.
By another notification in 1958, MP was appointed as Forest
Superintendent under S.2 (2) of the Forest Act. He was entitled to retain H
323
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
A three-fourths of the income derivable from the forest. The remaining was
payable to the government.
In 1974, the Appellant State nationalised the forests and incorporated
the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation"(HPFC). Produce of the government
forests could thereafter be sold only to HPFC. MP filed a writ petition in the
B Himachal Pradesh High Court claiming that he should be paid for the forest
produce sold by him to the HPFC at the same rates as fixed by a Pricing
Committee ap~ointed by the governmen~ for the purpose of determining the
price for the supplies made by it to HPFC. He contended that the Pricing
Committee's decision that "No differential rates or system can be fixed for
C Kutlehar Forests" entitled him to a share in all the charges recovered by
the government from· HPFC.
The High Court held that MP was "for all purposes, possessed power
of the government" and entitled to the interest on the delayed payment of
royalty, damages and penalty for the illegally felled trees. He was further
D conferred with the grant of interest on interest and share in the levy of
extension fee chargeable by the State from HPFC. MP was found to have been
deprived of the right to life and entitled " to enforce his right to livelihood
through this writ petition".
E
F
G
The appellant then approached, this Court
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1.1. No statutory right enforceable under law existed in favour
of respondent No. 1 regarding the enforcement of which a command could
have been issued in the form of a writ of mandamus. [340-F]
1.2. The High Court was not justified in allowing the claims of
respondent No. 1. The claims against the forest corporation owed their
origin to the exercise of the sovereign righ~s veste.d in the appellant State.
No private citizen, unless specially authorjsed in that behalf under the
provisions of law could prefer such claims. [340-D-E)
Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [1973) Supp. SCR 1; R.C.
Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530 and Madhav Rao v. Union,
(1971) 3 SCR 9, referred to.
1.3. Royalty connoted the State's share in the goods upon which the
H rights of its exploitation were conferred upon any person or a group of
,,.
STATE v. R.M. PAL
325
persons. Royalty could not be claimed by any individual, much less the A
controversial items being its attribute, by a citizen. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.