JUDGMENT C.S. Rajan, J. 1. As per Ext. Pi notification the first respondent invited offers for the right to collect the tops and barks from the forest. The petitioner was one of the participants in the auction and he was the highest bidder. Auction was confirmed later. But the petitioner did not execute the necessary agreement. Therefore, after issuing notice the first respondent as per Ext. P2 directed the petitioner to remit the loss sustained to the Government on account of the petitioner's conduct in not executing the agreement. In the absence of payment by the petitioner the amount was ordered to be recovered by means of Revenue Recovery Act. After considering the objection filed by the petitioner to Ext. P2 the proposal was confirmed is Ext. P4. It is Exts. P2 and P4 that are under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. Sri. M. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner argued two points against the legality of Exts. P2 and P4; (1) There was no concluded contract between the parties and therefore, no loss alleged to have been sustained to the Government can be recovered from the petitioner; and (2) the above amount is not recoverable by means of the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Clause.5 of Ext. P1 notification says that if the person who bid in auction commits default in payment of balance amount after executing the agreement, he is liable to pay the amount of loss sustained to the Government. It was also stated that the above amount can be recovered through the revenue recovery proceedings. 4. The issue is no longer res integra in view of one Division Bench and one Full Bench decisions of this Court. A Division Bench of this court held in the ruling reported in Bhaskaran Nair v. State of Kerala and Others 1980 KLT 462 that the loss caused to the Department on account of the failure to deposit the balance amount can be recovered through the Revenue Recovery Act. A Division Bench of this court held in the ruling reported in Bhaskaran Nair v. State of Kerala and Others 1980 KLT 462 that the loss caused to the Department on account of the failure to deposit the balance amount can be recovered through the Revenue Recovery Act. For the above purpose the Division Bench relied on S.79 of the Kerala Forest Act which enables the Government to recover all money payable to the Government under the Kerala Forest Act on account of timber or forest produce or of expenses incurred in the execution of the Act in respect of timber or forest produce or under any contract relating to forest produce including any sum recoverable thereunder for the breach of contract under the terms of a notice relating to the sale of forest produce by auction or by notification of tenders. In the above ruling the forest contractor who was the highest bidder an auction of forest produce failed to Comply with the requirement of depositing the balance amount. On his failure the forest produce was re sold which resulted in loss to the Government Revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the above bidder was sustained by this Court on the ground that the above amount is recoverable under the terms of notice relating to the sale of forest produce by the auction and it falls directly within the scope of S.79 of the Kerala Forest Act. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Rahiman v. D. P. Officer, 1988 (2) KLT 290 has also taken a similar view incorporating S.79 of the Kerala Forest Act. There also the petitioners were defaulters against whom revenue recovery proceedings were initiated to recover the loss sustained to the Government. In the above case it was contended that one of the parties to the contract cannot decide the damages unilaterally and arbitrarily. The Full Bench held that the primary duty is to fix the liability and assessment of damages is only an incidental or subsidiary function. The liability to pay damages is thus fastened where there is breach of contract. When a dispute arises as to whether the contract has been broken or not, the same has to be decided by an outside agency. In this case it is admitted that the petitioner did not execute the agreement and therefore there was a breach of contract. The liability to pay damages is thus fastened where there is breach of contract. When a dispute arises as to whether the contract has been broken or not, the same has to be decided by an outside agency. In this case it is admitted that the petitioner did not execute the agreement and therefore there was a breach of contract. The assessment of damages is based on the bid amount offered by the petitioner. For that purpose there need not be any separate assessment. Therefore the contentions raised by the petitioner failed. The Original Petition is dismissed.