TIMBER KASHMIR PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. versus CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, JAMMU & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 26-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
937 
TIMBER KASHMIR PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, JAMMU & ORS; ETC. 
October 26, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHIN6HAL, JJ.] 
Delegation of Powers to officers for execution of colltracts under section 122 
( 1) of Jam mu & Kashmir Constitution-Contracts containing arbitrarion c/aWJt. 
validly f#ecuted on beflalf of the Govem1ne11t cannot be questioned 011 the plea 
of violation of Section 122(1). . 
All the three applications filed by the respondent state for a reference to 
an arbitratf!r under section 20 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002 
were dismissed by a single judge of the J ammu & Kashmir High Court on the 
_ground that the arbitration clause was, in each case, a part of an agreement 
which was no~ duly exercised in accordance with the provisions of action 122(1) 
·of the J&K constitution which correspond to those of Art. 299(1) of the Con-
stitution of India. 
But the Divison Bench allowed the appeals holding that if 
contracts were signed by the Conservator of Forests in compliance with 
an 
order of the Government, the provisions of Section 122(1) of J&K constitution 
could not be said to have been infringed." 
Dismissing the appeals of the appellant company by certificates the Court. 
HELD : It is true that the contract could not b.e executed without the sanc-
tion. Nevertheless, if the sanction could be either expressly or impliedly givea 
by or on behalf of the Government, as it could, and, if some acts of the Govern-
A 
B 
c 
D 
.. 
ment could fasten· some obligations upon the Government, tbe lessee could also 
be estopped from questioning the terms of the grant of the sanction even where 
there is no written contract executed to bind the lessee. (938 G-H, 939' A] 
· 
E 
I 
But, once there had been a valid execution of lessee by duly authorised offi-
cers, the documents would be the best evidence of sanction also. That was one 
of the objects of prescribing a formal mode of execution of instruments on 
behalf of the Government. apart from the need to protect its interest against 
ma/a fide and other unauthorised acts of its servants or agents. [940 G-H] 
Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh,'. (1968] 3 S.C.R. 214, applied. 
In tbis case the contracts were executed by duly authorised officials under 
Government's orders. 
C1vm APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 313-315 of 
1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8-8-1972 of the Ja=u and 
F 
Kashmir High Court in Civil First Appeals Nos. 46 to 48 of 1972. 
G 
Naunit Lal, for the Appellant. 
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J.-These are three appeals 
by certification 
against 
the 
judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Ja=u & Kashmir, 
allowing appeals from the judgment of a learned Single Judge. The 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] ] S.C.R. 
Janunu and Kashmir Government had filed. three applications under 
section 20 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002, to refer 
disputes arising out of three agreements between it and the appellant 
Company to arbitration under the arbitration clauses of agreements 
between the parties. 
The applications 
had 
been 
dismissed 
by 
.. 
the learned 
single 
Judge 
on 
the 
ground that 
the 
arbitration 
clause was, in each case, a part of an agreement which was not duly. 
executed in accordance with the provi~ions of Section 122(1) of the 
Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which correspond to those of Arti-
cle 199(1) of the Constitution of India. 
The Division Bench hat! 
allowed the appeals of the Conservator of Forests, Jammu 
Circle;, 
after holding that the provisions of section 122 (1) of the Con~itution 
of Jailllllu & Kashmir could not be said to have been infringed if cont-
racts were signed by the Conservator of Forests in compliance with 
:in order of the Government. 
• 
The main-stay of the case of the appellant company was an ins-
truction or rule contained in "The book of the 
Financial Powers" · 
which reads as follows : 
"'S. 13. The power to sanction or cancel the terms of instrument.s, 
leases, agreements is delegated in the following cases : 
s. 
No. 
x 
Nature of power 
2 
x 
x 
To whom ctelgated. 
3 
x 
x 
Extent 
4 
x 
'< 
9. 
To sell forest produce Chief Conservator 
of Upto Rs. 7,000/· in value[ 
in each case provided the 
highest tender is accep-
ted. 
and to enter into con-
Forest. 
tract for the same. 
Conservators of Fores

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