JUDGMENT
Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.
1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated 4-3-1982 passed by the respondent Conservator of Forest directing that the respondent Bairia Forest Laborers Co-operative Society should be allowed to work in Forest Lot No. 31 situated in Bhabhua Range. A copy of that order is Annexure 2 to the writ application.
2. It appears that forest coupes are settled from time to time on basis of auctions held. On 28-1-1982 one such auction took place in respect of Lot No. 31, Coupe No. 18 in Bhabhua Range. The petitioner was the highest bidder having offered Rs. 25,000/-for the same. After the bid She deposited 15% of the bid money amounting to Rs. 3750/-. It is not in dispute that the settlement in favor of the highest bidder at such an auction was to be made only after the approval of the Conservator of Forest According to the petitioner, respondent Conservator of Forest instead of approving the proposal for settlement in favor of the petitioner in respect of the said Lot No. 31 passed the impugned order directing that respondent No. 5 which is a Forest Laborers Co-operative Society be allowed to work in the said Lot. Such an action on the part of the Conservator of Forest, according to the petitioner, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power in matters of settlement of coupes and liable to be quashed by this Court.
3. The State has to settle such forest coupes to different persons either on basis of a public auction or on basis of some guidelines by the State Government to Co-operative Societies for exploitation of the coupes in question. Of course, while making any settlement the State is required to act in a manner which cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness. The scope of the power of the State while allotting contracts, making settlements, has been examined in detail in the well known case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors. where it was pointed out that the State even in such matters required to act in a manner which cannot be held to be arbitrary. Still if such power has been exercised on basis of some reasonable principle or on basis of some guidelines issued by the State Government, which cannot be held to be arbitrary, then there is no question of interference by this Court. As such, it has to be examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case it can be held that by not accepting the highest bid of the petitioner and directing settlement in favor of respondent Co-operative Society the respondent Conservator of Forest acted in a manner which is not sanctioned by law.
4. On behalf of the respondents counter-affidavits have been filed and our attention was drawn to different decisions taken by the State Government in connection with settlement of forest coupes in favor of Forest Laborers Co operative Society. One such decision was communicated by letter dated 24-6-1968 by the State Government to the Chief Conservator of Forest Bihar, a copy whereof is Annexure A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State. In that communication it has been stated that the State Government had reviewed the Government policy regarding settlement of forest coupes with Co-operative Societies and after such review it was being ordered that settlement of forest coupes within approved ceiling of reserve price of Rs. 10,000/- should be made with only two types of societies, namely Forest Laborers Co-operative Societies and Forest Coupe Co-operative Societies. It was further directed that the settlement should be made on the basis of reserve price in the case of Forest Laborers Co-operative Societies only. In the case of Forest Coupe Co-operative Societies the settlement may be made at a price which is 10% less than the price obtained in open auction for the similar coupes in the area. By subsequent decisions the aforesaid ceiling of Rs. 10,000/- was increased to Rs. 15,000/- then to Rs. 20,000/- and ultimately to Rs. 30,000/- but the majority of members of such Forest Laborers Co-operative Society should be Advise (Scheduled Tribes). Two such decisions which were communicated by letters dated 18-8-1977 and 18-4-1981 have been enclosed to the counter affidavit of the State and marked as Annexure ‘B’ and ‘C’ On basis of the aforesaid decisions any forest coupe reserve Jama whereof is up to Rs. 30,000/-, can be settled with Forest Laborers Co-operative Society, the majority members whereof are of Scheduled Tribes.
5. There is no dispute that on basis of the aforesaid decisions the Lot in question could not have been settled with respondent No. 5. The main two grievances which have been made on behalf of the petitioner are that, firstly, having adopted the procedure of settlement through public auction it was no more open to the respondents to settle the said Lot No. 31 in favor of the Co-operative Society respondent No. 5; secondly, the respondent Co-operative Society having defaulted payment of the amount in respect of the settlement made in the previous year should not have been considered, being a defaulter.
6. Whether a person who is the highest bidder at a public auction acquires a right to get the settlement has been subject matter of controversy from time to time. However, there is no scope for controversy in cases where the acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the approval of another competent authority. In the instant case, 1 have already pointed out that it is an admitted position that settlement in favor of the petitioner could have been made only if his highest offer and settlement in his favor had been approved by the Conservator of Forest. At no stage the Conservator of Forest had passed any order approving the settlement in favor of the petitioner who was the highest bidder at the auction aforesaid is also not in dispute. In such a situation, in my view it is difficult to hold that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus on the respondent Conservator of Forest directing to approve the proposal of the settlement in favor of the petitioner. It is well settled by series of judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court that the right which the bidder at a public auction acquires in respect of a settlement which is subject to the approval of some higher authority cannot enforce any such right in a Court of law for getting the settlement in question because in eye of law there can be no settlement unless there is an approval by the competent authority.
7. So far as the question as to whether settlement in favor of the Co-operative Society respondent No. 5 should have been made or not is concerned, the objection which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the said Co-operative Society is a defaulter, and, as such, not entitled to the privilege under the aforesaid decisions of the State Government. It is true that the State Government while taking a decision that settlement in respect of forest coupes having reserve price up to a particular limit should be made with two types of Co-operative societies have also made it clear that before making settlement the authorities concerned should satisfy themselves that such Co-operative Societies are not defaulters. As such while making settlement in favor of such Co-operative Societies that condition has to be kept in view. So far as the instant case is concerned, from the impugned order itself it does not appear that the respondent Co-operative Society was a defaulter in the sense that it had failed to deposit the amount which it was liable to deposit in respect of the settlement for the previous year. The Conservator of Forest has mentioned in the impugned order itself that as in the pervious year the Co-operative Society had cut and removed the trees in an illegal manner they should pay adequate fine in respect thereof and then only this Lot No. 31 and some other Lots be settled with them. It has been stated on behalf of the respondent Co-operative Society that they have paid the fine imposed against them for contravening the rules regarding felling of the trees during the previous year. In such a situation it is not possible to hold that the settlement in favor of the respondent Co-operative Society is illegal on that account calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent Conservator of Forest had in September, 1981 when an auction was held in respect of that very Lot No. 31 and refused to make settlement in favor of respondent No. 5 because it had exploited the forest against the rules prescribed, but later the same Conservator of Forest waived that disqualification by the impugned order. I have already pointed out that for violating the rules the Co-operative Society had to pay fine and unless there is some decision of the State Government to debar such Co-operative Societies for ever and when no such decision has been brought to our notice, it is not possible to hold that the settlement of the coupe could not have been made In favor of the respondent Co-operative Society. On the materials on the record I am of the opinion that as settlement in favor of the petitioner could have been made only after the approval of the Conservator of Forest and there being no order of approval in favor of the petitioner he has not acquired any right which can be enforced through a writ by this Court. I am also of the view that while making settlement in favor of the respondent Co-operative Society, the Conservator of Forest has not contravened any decision of the State Government. But I must observe that even in cases where the acceptance of a highest bid at an auction is subject to the approval of a competent authority a citizen who participates at such bid and offers the highest amount should be informed by the competent authority whether his bid has been’ accepted or not. In normal course the competent authority should have first passed an order whether he was accepting or not accepting the proposal of the settlement in favor of the petitioner and thereafter he should have passed an order directing settlement in favor of respondent No. 5, Co-operative Society. Any way, as no order has been passed approving the proposal of settlement in favor of the petitioner he has not acquired any such right which he can enforce through a writ.
9. In the result, this writ application fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Anand Prasad Sinha, J.
10. I agree.