ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. In the year 1984 the State Government of M.P. appointed M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, a Government Co-operative Society as its agent for disposal of the Tendu leaves alloted to the Federation. In the said order the Government took a decision regarding disposal of Tendu leaves of the units by allotting 1053 units to the Federation, the agent and 773 units by the State Government. Both the State Government and the Federation issued separate tender notices. A decision was taken to dispose of the units in either case inviting tenders on lump-sum price basis without specifying the quantity of Tendu leaves expected to be collected from a particular unit. In the tender notice issued by the Federation in the year 1984, the upset price was disclosed against each unit. In the tender notice issued by the State Government no upset price was specified. The petitioner got registered as exporter of Tendu leaves under Section 11 of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 as per the essential conditions of the tender notice issued by the State Government. In respect of tenders by order issued on 21-3-1984 by the Conservator of Forest, Bhopal the offer of the petitioner was accepted in respect of Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra and 10-C, Veerpur in the Raisen Forest Division. It is worthnoting here the petitioner was called upon to execute an agreement in the manner stated therein, failing which the petitioner was to be held liable for penalty and other consequences under Clause 16 (a) of the tender notice. As some of the tenderers had series of grievances the matter was challenged before this Court in M.P. No. 1036/84 (Bhikabhai Mehta v. State of M.P. and Ors.). As averred the petitioner did not execute the agreement. It is worthwhile to note here that before not executing the agreement the petitioner had made certain requests to the authorities, namely, the Conservator of Forest, Bhopal but they were not paid heed to. Eventually by order dated 4-5-1984 the appointment of the petitioner as a purchaser was cancelled and an auction was held as contemplated under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice. 2. As the petitioner did not execute the agreement the auction was again held without notice to the petitioner. Eventually by order dated 4-5-1984 the appointment of the petitioner as a purchaser was cancelled and an auction was held as contemplated under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice. 2. As the petitioner did not execute the agreement the auction was again held without notice to the petitioner. Thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen issued a demand notice purported to be under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice demanding the loss to have been suffered by the State Government. In respect of the Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra, a demand notice was given on 3-5-1989 demanding that a sum of Rs. 3,82,374.00 has the loss sustained by the State Government resulting on account of failure of petitioner to execute the agreement in respect of Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra. The petitioner submitted a representation on 5-2-1997 to the Conservator of Forest, Bhopal stating therein that due to the erroneous interpretation of Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice, the petitioner was being asked to pay the amount to the State Government. It was his contention that the Government has earned profit of Rs. 32,027.16 in respect of these two lots and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount. The representation of the petitioner was not decided by the State Government and a proceeding was initiated for recovery and hence, this petition challenging the action of the State Government has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contending, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable due to latches and the grievances of the petitioner can be agitated under the appropriate provision of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. That apart, it has been urged that the petitioner had submitted his tenders for two units and they were accepted and were communicated to him and the petitioner was required to execute an agreement as per the condition No. 16 (a) of the Tender Notice but as he did not execute the agreement the petitioner's appointment as an agent for two units was cancelled and accordingly demand notices were issued under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice. It is further putforth that as the petitioner did not deposit the amount a revenue recovery certificate was issued. It is further putforth that as the petitioner did not deposit the amount a revenue recovery certificate was issued. While dealing with the loss it has been averred in the return that as per unit No. 10-B, Sunehra the tender amount received from the petitioner was Rs. 1,85,786.92. For this unit by collecting and disposing through the department the respondents had received the price of Rs. 1,48,053.87. It is stated that for the collection the answering respondents were required to spend Rs. 3,54,542.97 and the total loss to the answering respondents was Rs. 3,82,374.02. In regard to Unit 10-C, Veerpur the tender amount was Rs. 99,786.92. The answering respondents received the price of Tendu Leaves through department Rs. 1,68,645.10 but the answering respondents had to spend Rs. 1,60,796.68 towards collection expenditure. Thus, the total profit received by the answering respondents is only Rs. 7,848.50. It is putforth that if the petitioner would have executed agreement the answering respondents would have received the total gross profit of Rs. 99,786.92 without spending anything. In view of the aforesaid reasonings steps have been taken for collection of the profit. 4. It is submitted by Mr. V.S. Dabir, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that tenders were submitted under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice and the loss in the manner in which has been computed by the respondents is not permissible. 5. Resisting the aforesaid submission it is putforth by Mr. Vivek Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the State that as heavy amount was spent for collection of Tendu leaves, it cannot be said that the Department earned profit in its sale. 6. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer Clause 16 (ka) of the Tender Notice. Vivek Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the State that as heavy amount was spent for collection of Tendu leaves, it cannot be said that the Department earned profit in its sale. 6. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer Clause 16 (ka) of the Tender Notice. It reads as under : 16d bl izdkj srk fu;qDr fd;s tkus ij fu;qfDr ds vkns'k tkjh gksus ds 15 fnu ds Hkhrj vFkok srk ds vkosnu ij lacaf/kr ou laj{kd }kjk vius Lofoosd ls 30 fnu dh vf/kdre vfHko`fr dkykof/k ds Hkhrj mls layXu QkeZ ds djkj fu"ikfnr djuk gksxk] ftls fuIikfnr u djus ij fu;qfDr j fd;s tkus ds nkf;Rok/khu gksxh vkSj bl izdkj fu;qfDr j dj fn;s tkus ij c;ku ds :i esa tke dh xbZ jde dk vf/kgj.k dj fy;k tkosxk rFkk 'kklu vFkok ou laj{kd ml srk ftldh fu;qfDr j dj nh xbZ gks] ml bdkbZ ds rsUnwikksa ds i'pkr~orhZ fuorZu ls 'kklu }kjk mBkbZ xbZ gkfu] ;fn dksbZ gks rks lgu djsxk vkSj ;fn ;g gkfu ekax uksfVl ds tkjh gksus ds 15 fnu ds Hkhrj u tek dh xbZ gks rks gkfu dh jde mlls ;k mlds izfrHkwfr ls Hkw&jktLo ds cdk;k dh Hkkafr olwyh ds ;ksX; gksxhA ijUrq ;fn i'pkr~orhZ fuorZu esa vf/k jkf'k izkIr gS rks ml vf/kd jkf'k ij srk dk dksbZ vf/kdkj vFkok nkok ugha gksxk] gkfu dh lax.kuk gsrq v/kksfyf[kr lw= dk mi;ksx fd;k tkosxk%& gkfu dh jkf'k #i;ksa esa jde tks srk dh fu;qfDr dk vkns'k fujLr u fd;s tkus ij 'kklu dks feyrh] vFkkZr~ ewyr% Lohd`fr & ;; jkf'k] ftlesa laxzg.k O;;] fo; dj] e/;izns'k djk/kku vf/kfu;e ekad 15 @ 1982 ds varxZr yxk;k x;k ou fodkl midkj ,oa vU; dj lfEefyr ugha gS] ;fn bdkbZ dk ckn esa fuorZu gqvk gSA fVIi.kh%& ;fn ml bdkbZ dk i'pkrorhZ fuorZu ugha gksrk] rks foxr srk ls og jkf'k olwyh ;ksX; gksxh] tks ewyr% Lohd`fr ; jkf'k & rsUnwiks ds foHkkxh; laxzg.k ls izkIr 'kq vk;] ftlesa foHkkx }kjk ikksa ds laxzg.k ij fd;k x;k okLorfod O;;] fo; dj e;izns'k djk/kku vf/kfu;e 15 @ 1982 ds varxZr yxk;k x;k ou fodkl midj ,ao vU; dj lfEefyr ugha gSaA [k tks bdkbZ;k foyEc ls ; dh tkosaxh] mlds srk djkjukeksa esa v/kksfyf[kr vfrfjDr 'krZ gksxh%& ^^bl djkj dk fu"iknu srk }kjk foyEc ls fd;k gS] ijUrq mlus okafNr leLr dk;ks dh iwfrZ dh gS rFkk mlds nks"kksa ds fy;s og mkjnk;h gksxkA srk bl laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vkifk ugha mBk;sxk fd mldh fu;qfDr foyEc ls gksus ds dkj.k vFkok djkj dk fu"iknu mlds }kjk foyEc ls fd;s tkus ds dkj.k 'kk[kdrZu okafNr :i ls ugha dj ldus ds dkj.k 'kklu dks gksus okyh {kfr ds fy;s vFkok mlls lacaf/kr vFkZn.M ds fy;s og mkjnk;h ugha gSA** 6. Submission of Mr. Dabir is that if the Government has sustained loss the petitioner is bound to pay but he has given emphasis on the word "Pashchatwarti Niwartan" to highlight that it has to be disposed in the similar manner through a purchaser or an agent. Per contra, Mr. Awasthy, learned State counsel has contended that the Department may collect the Tendu leaves departmentally and sell it by any mode. Submission of Mr. Awasthy is that expenses in collection of Tendu leaves has to be taken into consideration, because by such collection the Department has been put to loss. In my considered opinion if Department spends exorbitant amount and the agent or the purchaser is allowed to make good the said loss Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice would be unconscionable and inequitable. On the contrary, if there is disposal by auction and the Department sustained loss that has to be made good by the first purchaser. This interpretation of Clause 16 (a) is more logical and appropriate. Otherwise in a particular case the Department may spend Rs. 5 lacs for collection of Tendu leaves and obtain Rs. 50,000/-. It will be unconscionable to ask first purchaser to pay Rs. 4 lacs. The words "Pashchatwarti Niwartan" has to be given a narrow meaning. In this context the words should be understood in an acceptable manner so that the Clause in the Tender Notice does not become unconscionable. 7. In view of the preceding analysis I am inclined to hold that the petitioner is liable to pay the loss sustained by the Department in respect of Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra and he should not pay anything in respect of Unit No. 10-C, Beerpur. Needless to emphasise, the amount in question would cover the extent of difference amount between the two prices. Mr. Dabir, learned senior counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he shall deposit the differential amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within two months from the date of receipt of this order. If the amount is paid revenue recovery proceeding shall not continue. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.