LexUNION OF INDIA versus ABDUL JALIL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 C. V. K. Rao v. Dtntu Bhaskara Rao Bidayatullah J. 1964 May 5 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS serves a notice on him stating the quantity pre-empted and the time within which the supply is to be made. The clause, however, does not make it obligatory on Government to prC-empt any quantity of mineral or at all. There is no obligation to buy nor is there any compulsion ·on the pan ot the lessee to sell unless asked. In these circumstances, the clause does no -more than to keep intact a right of the Government to obtain the minerals or their products as and when Government requires in preference to others. Till Government makes up its mind and serves a notice there is no obligation to make any deliveries and even though the word 'subsists' is a word of wide import, it cannot be said that a contract for the sale of goods subsists because a contract requires an offer and its acceptance and is not a mere reservation of a right. Taking the most liberal view of the matter it is clear that cl. 21 did not bring into being a contract for the supply of goods. All that it did was to reserve to the Government the right to prior purchase of the minerals raised by the respondent. The rese11;ation of such rights docs not amount to a contract for the supply of goods which can be said to subsist between the parties. The High Court was, therefore, right in reversing the decision of the Election Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. UNION OF INDIA v. ABDUL JALIL AND ORS. (M. HIDAYATULLAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Forest Act-"Reserved forest"-Tripura Act replaced by Indian Forest Act-No preliminaries prescribed under Tripura Act-Notification under it whether can he deemed to be under Indian Forest Art- Tripura Act and Indian Forest Act, object and purpose-Corres- ponding provisions-Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act 16 of 19271, S S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 159 Ch:J. II and IV, Tripura Forest Act, 1257 (1297?) T.E. (Tripura Act 2 of 1251 T.E. 1297?) s. 5. The respondents in these appeals were convicted by Magistrates for offiences under s. 26(1) of the Indian Forest Act. Appeals were filed to the Sessions Judge, where the respondents raised the contention that the forest areas in which the alleged offences were committed were not "Reserve forests" within the meaning of the Act. For establishing that these "reserves" were "reserved forests" within the Indian Act, the appellant relied on two circumstances. First, there 'vas a Forest Act promulgated by the Ruler of Triptira .State (Act 2 of 1257 T.E. 1297 T.E. ?) which contained provisions somewhat analogous to those con- tained in the Indian Act. Next, s. 5 of the Tripura Act enabled the State Government to declare by notifications published in the State Gazette, the boundaries of the forest areas to be governed by the State Act. Such notifications were published by which the boundaries of the reserves of the forests in question \Vere defined. The appellant urged that the Tripura Act was replaced by the Indian Forest Act by reason of legis4 lative provisions upon the merger of the native State of Tripura with the Dominion of India, and that the notifications under the Tripura Act which were continued in force by these same provisions rendered these re'5ervcs "Reserved forests" under the Indian Forest Act. The Sessions Judge held that by reason of these notifications the forest areas became .. reserved forests" under the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act and dis· missed the appeals. Thereafter, revisions were filed before the Judicial Commissioner, who tliffering from the Sessions Judge held that they were not "reserved forests" and directed the acquittal of the respondents. On ap:Jeal by special leave: HELD: (i) From the prov1s1ons of the Indian Forest Ac.t, 1t wouid be seen that it is the notification under s. 20 after complying with the procedure prescribed by the other sections of Chapter II commencing with s. 4 that constitutes a forest area "a reserved forest'' within the Act. (ii) The fact that under the Tripura Act there \\'ere no preliminaries prescribed before a forest could be notified as a reserved forest does nor detract from such a notification being a notification under the Indian Forest Act. (iii) In substance the object and purpose of the Tripura Act was the protection of particular trees-the seven types of trees specified in s. 4. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.