IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.03.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.34344 of 2007 St. Joseph's Eucalyptus Oil Co., rep. By its Proprietor, A.M.Xavier, 305, Main Bazaar, Ooty 643 001, Nilgris District. ... Petitioner vs. 1. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Corporate Office, 67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 2. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3. The District Forest Officer, Nilgris North Division, Ootacamund, Nilgris District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to Tender Notification dated 26.10.2007 bearing No.MM/SP/ENQ/80054/2007 on the file of the first respondent insofar as it relates to Block at Sl.No.1 Coupe Sl.No.4, 1963 Ebbanad 14.77-9.82 Hectares and at Block Sl.No.2 Coupe Sl.Nos.1 and 2 viz (1) 1988 Wenlockdowns 19.60 8.60 Hectares and (2) 1968 Wenlockdowns 33.00 4.25 Hectares, and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan For R1 : Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl. Advocate General For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.N.Kribanandam, Spl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the Tender Notification dated 26.10.2007 bearing No.MM/SP/ENQ/80054/2007 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same insofar as it relates to Block at Sl.No.1 Coupe Sl.No.4, 1963 Ebbanad 14.77-9.82 Hectares and at Block Sl.No.2 Coupe Sl.Nos.1 and 2 viz (1) 1988 Wenlockdowns 19.60 8.60 Hectares and (2) 1968 Wenlockdowns 33.00 4.25 Hectares.
2. According to the petitioner, it has been engaged in the business of distilling eucalyptus oil and felling of trees such as blue gum, wattle trees for pulp wood after obtaining due permission from the concerned authorities of the Government of Tamil Nadu. On the notification issued by the first respondent in the month of November 2006, inviting tenders for felling and transportation of blue gum/wattle wood in Nilgris South and North Divisions, comprised in 76 Plantations, grouped into 10 Blocks in the Nilgris North Division, the petitioner submitted its tender in respect of all the 76 plantations. Out of the 10 Blocks, 5 of them fall under the category of Social Forest (SF) and the other 5 come under the category of Reserved Forest (RF). The petitioner was awarded the tender in respect of 41 plantations comprised in 4 Blocks in the Reserve Forest category. The plantations which were awarded in the tender to the petitioner come within the overall allotment by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.142, Environment and Forest (FR4) Department dated 07.12.2006 to the Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Limited (TNPL) for the year 2006-2007.
3. The first respondent issued Work Order dated 06.01.2007 to the petitioner in respect of 4 Blocks in Reserved Forest category comprising 41 plantations. Even though 41 plantations were originally allotted to the petitioner under the Tender by TNPL and work order was also subsequently issued, actual permission was given by TNPL to the petitioner only in respect of 13 plantations falling under 4 different blocks under the Reserved Forest category. The total quantity of trees to be felled in 13 plantations actually allotted to the petitioner is approximately 7,021 tonnes and the work order stipulates that the entire quantities should be completed on or before 31.03.2007.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in respect of a tender which was called for in the month of November 2006, only in January 2007 the Work Order was issued, due to which they were unable to complete the work before 31.03.2007. Further, in spite of the actual allotment of 13 plantations, the permission to enter into the forest and fell the trees was not given by the District Forest Officer, for the allotted area at one stretch. On the other hand, the permission was granted to the first respondent TNPL and in turn to the petitioner only at the rate of 2 plantations in one range at a time which has also prevented the petitioner from completing the work within the stipulated time, i.e. on 31.03.2007. In view of such situation, the petitioner was not permitted to continue its operation for felling the trees in the 13 plantations after 31.03.2007. Therefore, the first respondent vide its letter dated 16.04.2007 sought for clarifications regarding the delay and non-completion of work within 31.03.2007, which has resulted in the District Forest Officer penalizing the company for un-removed pulp wood. A detailed reply was sent by the petitioner vide letter dated 24.04.2007 explaining that the delay was not on account of any fault of the petitioner, but it was only due to certain unnecessary restrictions imposed by the TNPL.
5. Further, the first respondent in the month of June 2007, vide letter dated 01.06.2007 had informed that they were likely to receive Government Order shortly for the balance quantity of pulp wood relating to 2006-2007 allotment and further requested the petitioner to confirm whether the balance quantity in the Work Order dated 06.01.2007 would be completed within 3 months from the date of clearance of the Forest Department. In response to the said letter, the petitioner vide Letter dated 04.06.2007 had informed the first respondent Company that they were willing to complete the work which had been undertaken under the work order dated 06.01.2007. Accordingly, the first respondent vide Letter dated 13.09.2007 directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.78,719/- to the office of the District Forest Officer in connection with certain shortages in the collection of firewood from the plantation area, as demanded by the District Forest Office vide Letter No.9502/2007 dated 12.09.2007. According to the petitioner, even before the first respondent received the said letter dated 12.09.2007, the Government had accorded approval for extension of time in respect of certain plantations alone for the balance quantities in the allotment for the year 2006-2007. It is his specific case that pursuant to the extension of time for the allotment for the year 2006-2007, the first respondent had orally permitted him on 15.09.2007 to continue its felling operations for 3 months in 3 plantations. It is his further case that vide letter dated 11.10.2007, he had agreed to the revised rates for cutting and transportation in the 3 plantations. Further, in the letter dated 17.10.2007, the first respondent had intimated the petitioner regarding the imposition of fine amount of Rs.10,000/- on them for the alleged violation of wood cutting norms of using axe instead of saw and that the petitioner had remitted the said amount.
6. Further, the first respondent proceeded to invite the tenders on 26.10.2007 for felling, billeting, debarking, stacking, loading and transportation of Wattle/Blue gum wood from the Nilgris North Division. Aggrieved by the above action of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the tender proceedings, on the ground that it is arbitrary, perverse, illegal and in contravention of the bid conditions, not taking into account the operations conducted by the petitioner.
7. Heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Addl. Advocate General for the first respondent and Mr.S.N.Kribanandam, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Work Order dated 06.01.2007 was given to the petitioner belatedly due to which the petitioner was unable to complete the felling operations within the stipulated period of 31.03.2007 and his inability to complete the work assigned cannot be treated as delay on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that pursuant to the extension of time for the allotment for the year 2006 2007, the first respondent had orally permitted the petitioner from 15.09.2007 to execute its felling operations. It is his further contention that the petitioner has been continuing the felling operations after 31.03.2007 and the cut trees are kept in the plantation area and the same have to be removed. The operations after the stipulated period have been recognised by the first respondent and several correspondence and communications which are placed before this Court would reveal that the petitioner has every right to continue the operations of felling of trees and transporting them. He further contended that before removing the trees which were cut, the first respondent has proceeded with inviting tenders in the felling of trees and transportation, etc.; therefore, there is an arbitrary exercise of power and it is in violation of the statutory rights.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent has strenuously contended unless there is arbitrary power or any violation of any of the rights guaranteed under the constitution, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the tender process. He further contended that the period of contract was signed on 31.03.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner does not have any right to continue with the felling of trees and make any further claim beyond the specified period, which is in contravention of the tender conditions. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner cannot seek any relief before this Court even on equity and the tender process commenced by the first respondent is in accordance with law and in no way it affects the rights of the petitioner.
10. Mr.S.N.Kribanandam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 has contended that the petitioner has got no manner of right after the expiry of the tender period, i.e. 31.03.2007 and the operation of felling of trees would amount to violation of tender conditions and the respondents 2 and 3 are not justified in permitting the action of the petitioner in continuing its operations of felling of trees.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material documents placed before this court.
12. It is seen from the records that the first respondent issued Tender Notification vide Tender No.200695111, inviting tenders for felling and transportation of blue gum/wattle wood in Nilgris South and North division and the petitioner applied in respect of all 76 plantations. The second respondent Government of Tamil Nadu had allotted a total quantity of 39,708,698 M.T. of raw materials for the year 2006-2007 to the first respondent. The first respondent issued Work Order dated 06.01.2007 to the petitioner in respect of 4 Blocks in Reserved Forest category comprising 41 plantations. Even though 41 plantations were originally allotted to the petitioner under the Tender by TNPL and work order was also subsequently issued, actual permission was given by TNPL to the petitioner only in respect of 13 plantations falling under 4 different Blocks under the Reserved Forest category and the total quantity of trees to be felled in 13 plantations is approximately 7,021 tonnes. It is claimed by the petitioner that the first respondent executed a Power of Attorney dated 05.09.2007 and there had been an official discussion that if the work order was given at the rate of Rs.590/- per tonne, then the petitioner may be allowed to cut and transport the trees to the first respondent company at Karur. Though the said Power of Attorney is disputed by the first respondent in its submissions, the operation of felling of trees by the petitioner on its own beyond 31.03.2007 and the keeping of the same in the plantation area are not in dispute.
13. Though the petitioner made operations after 31.03.2007 based on the oral permission given by the first respondent, there is no material to conclude that the petitioner had a legal right to continue with the operations. However, in view of the discussion the petitioner had with the first respondent officials, it is seen that the petitioner was not given any further permission to continue with the operation of felling of trees beyond the stipulated period.
14. It is a settled legal proposition that no doubt the petitioner is having a legal right to sustain the operations conducted during the period for which he is legally entitled. Beyond that, the claim made by the petitioner
appears to be without a legal right. Even then, the operations were allowed to continue. In the process of discussion with the first respondent, the petitioner’s efforts to get some favourable orders in transporting the accumulated trees which were cut and kept in the plantation area were in vain. In the absence of any materials to conclude that there is arbitrariness on the part of the first respondent in inviting tenders, I am not inclined to traverse on any of the infirmities of the tender process as the petitioner is not a person having locus standi to challenge the tender proceedings at this stage on the guise that he has a legal right to continue the operations beyond 31.03.2007. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot look into the circumstances under which the petitioner has been continuing with the felling of trees beyond 31.03.2007, on the expectation that it may get favourable orders from the first respondent. This aspect of the matter has to be taken into account while deciding the above issue and also whether the petitioner’s materials kept in the plantation area are to be removed and transported to the first respondent.
15. In view of the material consideration and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusing the relevant impugned proceedings which are challenged by the petitioner, claiming that it has the right to conduct operations beyond 31.03.2007, I see no merit in the petitioner’s
claim and the challenge made to the tender process, as the first respondent has every domain to call for the tender. Taking note of the overall circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner fell the trees, kept them in the plantation area and the quantity of which is calculated up to 256 cubic metres., the same may be permitted to be transported by the petitioner and it should be given to the first respondent as a matter of right indicated as per the petitioner’s letter dated 11.10.2007.
16. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 4 of 2007 are closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to claim the amount due from the first respondent and the same may be considered by the first respondent within a reasonable time.
17. At the stage of conclusion, learned counsel for the first respondent has made a specific plea that during the pendency of the writ petition, as there was an order of stay, they were not in a position to cut the trees for a period of three months and therefore, the 2nd and 3rd respondents may be directed to consider the said period of three months by permitting them to fell trees for an additional period of three months. In this regard, it is open to the first respondent to approach the 2nd and 3rd respondents, in which event, the same may be taken into consideration by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and appropriate orders may be passed.
abe
To :
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited,
Corporate Office, 67, Mount Road,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Nilgris North Division,
Ootacamund,
Nilgris District.