ORDER
P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Though the matter is listed for considering the petition in W.M.P.No.20798 of 2002 for interim direction, on consent of the counsels appearing for the parties, the entire writ petition is taken up for disposal.
3. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.4.2002 passed by the third respondent and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to permit the petitioner to do slaughter tapping of latex, felling and removal of rubber trees in bit Nos.1 and 3 in coupe No. VII in Keeriparai Division of the rubber plantation owned by the first respondent.
4. It appears that contract regarding the aforesaid coupe was granted to the petitioner, by agreement dated 11.3.2002. The petitioner filed an application before the Chairman of the second respondent Corporation to permit the petitioner to cut and remove half of the trees, for which, amount had already been deposited by the petitioner. Under the impugned order dated 12.4.2002, the petitioner was told that the petitioner cannot cut trees simultaneously in more than one block and only after finishing one block and cutting the rubber trees systematically block wise, the petitioner would be permitted to cut the trees in the other blocks.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has invited my attention to the conditions contained in the contract and has submitted that the aforesaid direction was fully justified.
6. In course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount which were to be paid in four instalments and has submitted that since the entire amount has been deposited, the petitioner may be permitted to undertake the work in respect of all the bits in coupe No. VII. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there is no instruction relating to payment of the entire amount and more over, as per the contract, the coupe could be exploited systematically block wise and not according to the choice of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as dispute was raised and the matter is pending before this court, the petitioner was not in a position to make much headway in the matter of cutting and removing the trees. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has completed the cutting and removal from one block and he is about to begin in another block and since monsoon has set in the meantime, it would be difficult for the petitioner to complete the work within the stipulated period of six months. He has therefore prayed that the time may be extended in a reasonable manner so that the petitioner would be able to complete the work. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as per the terms of the contract, the time is the essence of the contract and ordinarily, no extension would be granted and has therefore objected to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on several occasions, other contractors have been allowed to exploit the coupe as a whole, and not block wise. He has cited an instance of coupe X, XI and XIX and extension has been granted. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not accept the correctness of such submissions.
7. It is unnecessary to go into the various controversies, as in my opinion, the entire matter has to be seen from the point of view of substantial justice and not on the basis of any technical consideration. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have no reason to disbelieve such a statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, all the four instalments had been paid. Since the Corporation has already received the entire amount payable, there should not be any objection on the part of the respondent Corporation to permit the petitioner to exploit the coupe in any manner the petitioner likes and not block wise, as in my opinion, the real intention is to see that the contractor does not get right to exploit the entire coupe without paying the entire amount. The purpose of the clause is to protect the interests of the Corporation in the matter relating to the payment of the consideration amount.
8. The learned counsel for the Corporation expressed the apprehension that if the petitioner contractor is permitted to exploit the coupe as a whole, according to his choice, the contractor may leave many uneconomical trees, as a result of which, it would be difficult for the Corporation to undertake the replantation work and the Corporation may be forced to spend further amount for clearing the forest for the purpose of replantation. She has further submitted that as per the contract, the petitioner is required to clear all the trees and therefore, to ensure such removal of all the trees, it would be more appropriate to allow the petitioner to clear the trees block wise. It is not disputed that sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been deposited towards the Earnest Money which is kept as a security for proper performance of the contract and if the contract is not performed, such amount can be forfeited. To allay the apprehension in the mind of the learned counsel representing the Corporation, I feel in the interests of justice, to impose a further condition to the effect that a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner as Earnest Money which would be kept as a security for the proper performance of the contract and if there is any violation of the terms of the contract, it will be open to the Corporation to forfeit this additional amount, along with the original Earnest Money Deposit. Moreover, the condition relating to removal of all the trees can be secured by calling upon the petitioner to furnish an undertaking in the shape of affidavit in this court, before the Registry. The undertaking to remove all the trees and the undertaking to make a deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of two months from today, should be furnished within a period of three weeks from today.
9. The next question is relating to the submission for extension of time. Even though the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation has vehemently opposed such submission, I think in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, interests of justice would be served by extending the period of time for completion of the contract, till the end of November 2002. This is being extended, keeping in view, the fact that the controversy remained pending in the High Court for some time and the monsoon has set in the meantime and the petitioner was not able to exploit the coupe by simultaneously working on more than one block. It is obvious since this direction regarding extension is given on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this should not be a precedent for other cases. It is also made clear that the contract should be completed by 30th November 2002. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.20798 of 2002 for direction, is closed.