Per S. K. Gupta, Judge This batch of appeals has arisen out of the same judgement. A limited controversy involved in these appeals against the judgement of the Learned Single Judge, dated 2nd February, 1999, passed in group of writ petitions (OWP No. 520/1985, OWP No. 1032/1985, OWP No. 1093/85, OWP No. 1088/85, OWP No. 66/86, OWP No. 738/90, OWP No. 151/86, OWP No. 1142/85, OWP No. 543/85, OWP No. 1043/85, OWP No. 621/86, OWP No. 99/86, OWP No. 15/86, OWP No. 563/86, OWP No. 4/86, OWP No. 236/87, OWP No. 189/86, OWP No. 849/84 and OWP No. 1025/85), pertains to the directions of the writ Court to the appellants that they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum viz-a-vis timber, which is covered by the Principal Lease Agreements. The appellants being forest lessees entered into various Lease Agreements with the Jammu and Kashmir Government during various years up to 1979. The lease were known as `Principal Lease Agreements Clause (2) of the lease agreements clearly indicated the compartments leased out to the forest lessees, the schedule of payments and time during which the lease is to remain in operation. The lessee was under an obligation to make the payment, as is expressly provided in the Schedule. If the lessee fails to pay any instalment of royalty or any portion thereof on or before the due date, or the extended date in the Schedule, he is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum; and this amount along with the royalty, will be recoverable from the security money, as per stipulation in the lease agreement. For facility of reference Clause (2) of the Principal Lease Agreement is reproduced hereunder : "Clause 2: The lessee binds himself and undertakes to pay the said sum of Rs. 30,01,000/- (Thirty lacs One Thousand Only) mentioned in clause I above in the following manner :- (1) Rs. 30,, 010/-, on or before, 1.12.1974, 1% (2) Rs. 1,, 50,, 050/-, on or before, 1.07.1975, 5% (3) Rs. 4,, 50,, 150/-, on or before, 1.12.1975, 15% (4) Rs. 4,, 50,, 150/-, on or before, 1.07.1976, 15% (5) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.12.1976, 16% (6) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.07.1977, 16% (7) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.12.1977, 16% (8) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.07.1978, 16% 2. 4,, 50,, 150/-, on or before, 1.12.1975, 15% (4) Rs. 4,, 50,, 150/-, on or before, 1.07.1976, 15% (5) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.12.1976, 16% (6) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.07.1977, 16% (7) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.12.1977, 16% (8) Rs. 4,, 80,, 160/-, on or before, 1.07.1978, 16% 2. The Chief Conservator of Forests may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded by him in writing, extend the period of payment of any instalment for a period not exeeding six months. If the extension covers the period of more than six months, Government sanction will be necessary. If the lessee fails to pay any instalment of royalty or any part thereof on or before the due date, or the extended date, he will be liable to pay simple interest at a rate of 9% per annum; and this amount, along with the royalty, will be recoverable from his security money and by seizure, detention and sale of his timber extracted from the forest as may be lying in the forest, in the road side, afloat, in river or lying in any other place. If such failure extends to 30 days, the lessor shall be competent to cancel this agreement after 15 days." 3. The lease agreement further provided that before the lessee is permitted to appropriate the timber and the same is released to him, all the dues are required to be cleared. It was in the month of February and March, 1979, when the Valley experienced heavy snowfall, as a result of which, there was a huge damage caused to the trees in forest - some of the areas covered by the Principal Lease Agreement and others in the adjoining compartments/coupes, which did not form the part of the `Original Principal Lease. The State Government, in order to salvage the snow fallen damaged material, took a decision as a matter of Policy that the snow fallen trees in the compartments covered by the principal lease Agreements and also in the compartments adjoining the compartments coming under Principal Lease Agreements be given to the lessees for extraction, who were holding the current leases. As a consequence thereof, an agreement came to be executed by the concerned lessees in the year 1979. As a consequence thereof, an agreement came to be executed by the concerned lessees in the year 1979. This agreement was described as `first supplementary agreement and was clearly intended to enlarge the existing/working lease coupes of the Principal Leases. This supplementary ageement related to the snow damaged trees in the forests and came to be executed for different places. It provided that the rates were to be fixed by the State Government. The first supplementary ageement also provided the re-phasing of the royalty instalments schedules under Clause (2) of the Principal Lease Agreement on account of the inclusion of the rates of snow fallen material to be determined by the Government. The terms and conditions of the Principal Lease Agreement would also apply mutates mutandis to the snow damaged material, as indicated in Clause (i) of the supplementary agreement. In other words, the supplementary agreement is co-existent and co-extensive with the Principal Lease Agreements. Clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the supplementary agreement further provided the enlargment of the time of the Principal Lease to cover up the time for extraction of further volume of snow fallen damaged material and, thus, provided suitably re-phasing of instalments of royalty payment schedule, in view of the increase in the value of the Principal Lease and additional royalty to be paid. The rates of the snow damaged material were fixed by the Government in the year 1980 vide its order No. 130-FST of 1980 dated 18.9.1980 and further Government vide Order No. 100-FST of 1981 dated 18.6.1981 prescribed the rates of the `snow damaged material for the Kashmir Valley and through out the State for `dry trees. It is stated that on the execution of the first supplementary agreement, the Department was required to re-phase the schedules for payment of instalments, so as to apprise the writ petitioners/appellants of the dates of the payments of royalty amounts. It is contended that as a result of the inertness on the part of the Government, Clause (2) of the Principal Lease Agreement virtually became inoperative after the execution of the first supplementary agreement. The forest lessees, however, pleaded that they did not incur any contracual obligation to make the royalty payments, in the absence of re-schedulement of the payments that as to when and how much they were required to make the royalty payments. The forest lessees, however, pleaded that they did not incur any contracual obligation to make the royalty payments, in the absence of re-schedulement of the payments that as to when and how much they were required to make the royalty payments. According to the appellants, they continued paying all the dues in terms of Clause (9) of the Principal Lease Agreements, though neither the Department nor the Government notified any amendment in the Principal Lease Agreements in prescribing the additional period required for extraction of `additional snow fallen material from the allotted/leased coupes in terms of the supplementary agreement, in discharge of their contractual obligation. In the backdrop of the facts, the appellants further pleaded that they were not liable to pay any interest on the alleged belated payments. This plea, however, did not merit acceptance with the Learned Single Judge, who vide his impugned judgement held and observed as under; "So far as merit of the controversy is concerned, there can be no dispute with the proposition that the petitioners are liable to pay interest @ 9% so far as the timber covered under principal lease is concerned. From this liabilty there is no escape route. Therefore, the petitioners are held liable to pay interest @ 9% vis-a-vis timber which was subjected matter of principal lease. This would of course be subject to extensions and remissions, if any granted by the State Government". 4. The appellants, however, were aggrieved of this finding of the Learned Single Judge and impugned its correctness before us in these appeals. 5. Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently urged that after the execution of the first supplementary agreement, the schedule of payments provided in Clause (2) of the Principal Lease Agreement originally applied, shall cease to apply. His further contention is that the period provided for the payments of royalty in the Principal Lease Agreement in its Clause (2) also came to be superceded by the first supplementary agreement, as the Government was under an obligation to brief up the fresh schedules for royalty payments and the extention of working period required for extraction of `snow fallen material both from Principal Lease Agreement as also from adjoining compartments. In other words, a new schedule was required to be prescribed by the Government/Department setting aside the schedule prescribed by clause (2) of the Principal Lease Agreement, which having not been done after the execution of the first supplementary agreement did not incur any contractual obligation of the lessee to pay interest so far as timber covered in the Principal Lease is concerned. 6. According to Mr. Shah, on execution of the supplementary agreement, the conditions with regard to the working period of the original Principal Lease and the schedules of payment of royalty instalments as also the liability to pay interest became diluted and further ceased to exist when no re-schedulement of the payments of royalty was provided by the Forest Department, and the appellants were not liable to pay any interest even on belated royalty payment, if any. Mr. Shah further submitted that the writ Court has not gone into the real controversy between the parties and dealt with the matter on its surface and, consequently, the finding arrived at is factually frail and legally infirm. The appellants counsel also emphasized that the Government was required to make suitable rephasing of payments schedule in the Principal Lease Agreement in order to cover both the Principal Leases and salvage adjoining compartments, which has not been done and, thus, can not make the appellants to bear 9% simple interest on belated royalty payments, if any. Inerest at the rate of 9% is not chargeable at all from the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants continued making payment proportionate to the timber released from the catching depots/sale depots from time to time both under the Principal Lease Agreements and the first supplementary agreements. This position is, however, stated to have continued till the order No. FST-205 of 1984 dated 22-9-1984 was issued by the Government. It is urged that the Government having not re-phased the schedules of payment of royalty instalments, the additional working period for extraction of the additional volume, as provided in the first supplementary agreement, and there being no terms under the contract that they are liable to pay interest by contractual obligation, the appellants are relieved of the obligation to pay interest. 7. 7. Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 dated 22-2-1984, which was followed by second supplementary agreement, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder: "Government of Jammu and Kashmir" Civil Sectt; Forest Department @TBLCN = ******* Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 Dated :- 22-2-1984 @TBLCN = ******* Whereas with a view to minimizing the litigatiom regarding forests without prejudice to the policy of the Government in respect of forest and the stand taken by it before the Court, the Government, vide Government a High powered Committee; and Whereas the Government having accepted the recommendations of the committe, making the following orders:- 1. Consistent with Policy of the Govt. regarding nationalization of extraction operations of forest by the end of December 1984, the forest lessees will be allowed to work on the existing leases including these orders by Courts upto December 1984, to complete the extraction and to handover the forests back to the Department by 31st December, 1984. 2. That the mode of payment of royalty by the lessees will be as under:- (a) For stocks already sold in respect of which payment of royalty has already become due and is in arrears the entire royalty amount shall be paid, before execution of the fresh agreement and acceptance thereof by the competent Authority. (b) For stocks already felled and transported to the Sale points namely (to be specified by the Chief Conservator of Forests) the lessee shall be liable to pay the royalty in accordance with the proportion of timber released from such sale points under the authority of the Forest Department subject to the condition that he clears all the royalty dues on these stocks by the end of December 1984. (c) For stocks to be filled and extracted upon end of December 1984, the entire quantity is to be removed out of the forests before December 1984 and the royalty payment thereon shall be paid in accordance with the proportion of releases of timber from sale points in accordance with the authority of the Forest Department till the end of December, 1985 which date shall in no case be extended. 3. 3. In the event of any default of failure in the payment of royalty as mentioned above, or any outstanding which may be against him, the lessee shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 25% on the amount due without prejudice to the right of the Government to dispose off the timber unpaid for, by sale at whatever stage it may be and adjust the sale proceeds therof towards the royalty outstanding and other liabilites. If after such adjustment thereby any balance amount due, it shall be recoverable as arreears of land revenue under the law in force; 4. The transportation/carriage of timber from forests shall be the liabilty of the lessee, but it shall remain pledged to the Forest Deptt. till all outstandings on account of royalty etc. are cleared by the concerned lessee; 5. If any lessee does not handover the forests by the cut-off date of 31 December 1984 the coupe of standing trees shall be deemed to have been reverted to the Government alongwith any stuff extracted and lying over in the coupe without payment of any compensation whatsoever; 6. As regards the payment of surcharge, those lessees who complete the work in the forests by or before the end of December 1984 and make regular payments of royalty in accordance with the schedule of payment indicated in para 2 above, will not be charged any surcharge; 7. In respect of cases namely; 1. Lease of Comptt.55-56/Basholi Billawar Division under work of M/S Sudhir and Co. and 2. Lease of Comptt.65-66/b Arnas Range under work of M/s Hardutt Sharma. The lessee shall be allowed to fell, extract and carry the leased out quantity upto end of December 1984 and if there remain any quantity of timber unfelled on the said date, it shall revert to the Government and the price of such balance unfelled timber at the lease rate shall be adjusted towards the royalty if any outstanding against these lessees or payable as the case may be. In case of felled timber such lessee shall in addition be paid cost of extraction to be determinded by the Chief Conservator of Forests. 8. The Forest Lessees shall have to execute a fresh Agreement incorporating all the decisions mentioned above and other relevant clauses including the penal clause therein. This agreement shall be drafted by the Law Department. 9. In case of felled timber such lessee shall in addition be paid cost of extraction to be determinded by the Chief Conservator of Forests. 8. The Forest Lessees shall have to execute a fresh Agreement incorporating all the decisions mentioned above and other relevant clauses including the penal clause therein. This agreement shall be drafted by the Law Department. 9. The Forest lessees shall have to withdraw their case from the Courts before the Fresh Agreements are executed by them and accepted by the Competent Authority. 10. A Special authorization will be given to the Chief Conservator of Forests to execute all these agreements himself and to ensure implementation thereof in letter and spirit. The benefit of this order will be available only to those of the forest lessees as will withdraw cases filed by them against the State/Forest Department in the Court of law. Sd/- (Ghulam Sham) Commissioner/Secretary to Government Forest Department" 8. With the issuance of the aforesaid Government Order, which granted extension to the lessees to work on the existing leases and continue with the extraction operations up to ending December, 1984 and, in view of the changed circumstances, various writ petitions filed by the lessees were withdrawn, the Advocate General made a statement that the extensions were granted to the lessees subject to their executing a fresh agreement, which was in the process of preparation. It was further pointed that only those lessees will be entiled to the benifit of Government Order dated 22-2-1984, who execute the agreement within the stipulated period of two weeks. Contextual facts depict further that the second supplementary agreement came to be executed between the Forest Department and the lessees. This agreement, however, did not indicate the amount payable by the lessees to the Government nor specified the quantity of timber extracted and also further to be extracted by the lessees. These spaces were left blank in the agreement. It was submitted by the petitioner/appellants that there were several blanks in the agreement when they signed it. The amount to be paid by the lessees also could not be ascertained for want of detail of timber extracted as the record was to be examined, because the lessees had either worked in the compartments under the Court orders or had been allotted compartments by the competent Forest Authority. The amount to be paid by the lessees also could not be ascertained for want of detail of timber extracted as the record was to be examined, because the lessees had either worked in the compartments under the Court orders or had been allotted compartments by the competent Forest Authority. That the details of the amount payable could not be ascertained by the Chief Conservator of forests in the month of March, 1984, as it required examination of the record in depth, both of the lessees and that of the lessor. At one point of time, the lessees further stated to have made some endavour to provide assistance to the Department to work out the arrears payable by them, and when approached them, a meeting was held by the Forest Department. Appellants/petitioners gathered an impression in the meeting that the Forest Department is contemplating to change simple interest of 9% from the lessees, who did not make the payment of royalty in accordance with Clause (2) of the Principal Lease Agreement. The appellants/petitioners specifically stated that interest could not be charged, as for all the years since the sanction of the lease, being both contrary to the terms of the agreement and in violation of law. The appellants/petitioners also stated that in calculating the arrears of royalty, the Department did not follow the conversion formula strictly. Even the second supplementary agreement provided to the lessees in the month of march, 1984 did not bear the signatures of the Chief Conservator of Forests, an authority competent under Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 to sign it. What can be the basis to charge the interest was not even known to the Divisional Forests Officers. That though the second supplementary agreement indicated the amount, which, according to the respondents, was inclusive of interest, but without working out the details of the arrears of payment of royalty, if any, from the record of the lessees and that of the lessor and, therefore, asserted by the appellants/petitioners, to have no binding effect. This has been indicated in Clause(2) of the second supplementary agreement. That this figure could be entered into the agreement only after the details of arrears of royalty are worked out and determined from the record. This has been indicated in Clause(2) of the second supplementary agreement. That this figure could be entered into the agreement only after the details of arrears of royalty are worked out and determined from the record. This amount could not be ascertained with certitude within a short time, as indicated by the respondents and required a complete exercise after taking the details from the record of the lessor and that of the lessees, which require a sufficient time for this exercise to be done with accuracy. It is also submitted by the appellants that the amount mentioned in the second supplementary agreement is not agreeable amount between the parties and, therefore, does not bind the appellants at all. It is further reiterated that the Forest Department was more particular about the lessees to vacate the compartments in which they were working, whether in Principal Lease or adjoining compartments, on or before ending December, 1984, little caring about the finacial liability of the lessees worked out, without taking details from the record and figure determined and ascertained. According to the appellants/petitioners, the amount shown in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement by the Forest Department as arrears of royalty could neither be said to be accurate nor final. To support their contention, the appellants/petitioners also relied upon the explanation provided in Clause 2 of the agreement, which may be noticed as under: Explanation : The amounts as indicated in this clause is without prejudice to the right of the Government or the lessee to claim any other sum or sums chargeable or refundable as the case may be" 9. The appellants/petitioners further pleaded that this explanation provided them a lever to question their liability to pay the said amount reflected in Clause 2 of the agreement, which, according to the respondents, was inclusive of the interest, irrespective of the fact that the same is indicated in the agreement. In other words, the appellants/petitioners pleaded that no interest is chargeable on the royalty amount after the execution of the first supplementary agreement. Even prior to this agreement also, the Department cannot charge interest and the appellants/petitioners urged the applicability of the promissory estoppels in their case. In other words, the appellants/petitioners pleaded that no interest is chargeable on the royalty amount after the execution of the first supplementary agreement. Even prior to this agreement also, the Department cannot charge interest and the appellants/petitioners urged the applicability of the promissory estoppels in their case. However, the Forest Department also realized the necessity to look into the question of interest as surcharge to be realized from the lessees and giving incentive of rebate, and constituted a committee of Retired Chief Conservator of Forest vide Order dated 31-8-1985. The report of the committee, however, when not found suitable by the Government did not act upon it, without rationale and justification. 10. The main plank of the appellants contention put across during arguments is that on the execution of the first supplement agreement in 1979 and in the absence of re-phasing of the payment schedules, fixing the period for making the payments, the Government cannot insist upon the appellants/petitioners to pay interest. It is further pointed out that when the Government by issuing orders from time to time deferred the payments of royalty, if can charge interest on belated payments, without taking note of this fact. It is also stated that in view of the general extention in working period of lease, interest @ 9%, if could be charged from the appellants/petitioners by the respondents, prior to the execution of the first supplementary agreement in 1979. Further plea of the appellants/petitioners is that since Clause (2), Clause (11) and Clause (12) of the Principal Lease Agreement stand substituted, they are no longer liable to pay interest, as envisaged in proviso to Clause (2) of the Principal Agreement. The appellants further submitted that Clause (3) of the second supplementary agreement drawn in pursuance of the Government Order dated 22-2-1984 provides that if any of the lessees fails to pay the amount in arrears, such lessees shall bear 25% interest (one-time) on the amount remaining due as on 31-12-1985. That in view of this position, the appellants submit that they are not liable to make payment enumerated in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement. 11. That in view of this position, the appellants submit that they are not liable to make payment enumerated in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement. 11. The stand of the respondents-State, on the other hand, taken in their counter and further projected in the arguments of the Advocate General, is that Circular No. 3855-3905 dated 13-12-1984, Letter No. 3575-81 dated 21-1-1985 and Letter No. 274-79/C-VII-Gen dated 31-1-1985, issued by the Government from time to time, are binding on the appellants/ petitioners and its validity canot be questioned. The respondents further stated that the appellants/petitioners, having signed the second supplementary agreement, agreed to pay the amount mentioned in its Clause 2, and its validity canot be challenged. The bills raised and issued to the appellants/petitioners are strictly in accordance with the second supplementary agreement. The case of the appellants/petitioners, on the other hand, is that in so far as the interest is concerned, this is sought to be charged in terms of the Orders (Circular and Letters referred to above) issued/passed by the Department. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondents cannot charge interest on the so-called belated royalty payments. Appellants/Petitioners say so in view of the undisputed facts flowing from the aforesaid letters, viz, the quantum of interest chargeable on snow fallen markings has not been clarified, schedules fixing the time for payments of royalty with interest has not been worked out at the time Government issued Order No. FST-205 of 1984. Even the re-phasing of the amount to be charged was belated and that in case the interest was to be charged, re-shaping of instalments required to be worked out, has not been done. On evaluating, estimating and appreciating the material on record, the learned Single Judge concluded and held as under: "In view of the above, I am of the opinion that: (i) the petitioners are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% vis-a-vis timber which was covered by the principal lease agreement, and (ii) vis-a-vis the remaining timber, the rate of interest would be governed by clause 3 of the Government order No. 205." 12. The appellants aggrieved by the judgement propounded by the learned Single Judge only to the extent that the Court has directed to pay 9% simple interest on belated payments in Principal Lease on the dues under the said Principal Leases Agreement alone, have impugned its correctness in these LPAs. It is significant to point out that there is, however, no appeal filed by respondent-State or its funtionaries against the judgment, nor any cross-objection have been filed. 13. We have heared Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Mr. A.H. Naik, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, in extenso. 14. The main plank of the arguments of the appellants counsel, Mr. Z.A. Shah, is that the direction of the writ Court to the appellants to pay 9% simple interest on belated payments under the Principal Lease Agreement till 22-2-1984, when Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 was issued, is not sustainable. His further submission is that the appellants, however, succeeded before the writ Court except the aforesaid direction and the appeals are only confined to this limited controversy relating to the direction of the writ Court for payment of 9% simple interest. It is not in dispute that the appellants executed the agreements from time to time up to the year 1979. The compartments leased out to forest lessees, amount payable in the form of instalments by the forest lessees, the date on which it became due and the period during which the lessees were to work in the leased out compartments was expressly provided in those lease agreements. Where the original working period in the leases had expired, general extentions were granted vide various Government Orders and, accordingly, period of lease extended and also the schedules of payments of royalty under these general extensions. The grant of extensions in the working period of leases is explicit from various Government Orders issued from time to time during various years. The Government vide Order No. FST-115 of 1966 dated 23-11-1966 extended the working periods of lease and further deferment of royalty payment that had fallen due during 1-4-1965 to 1-4-1966, by one year. The grant of extensions in the working period of leases is explicit from various Government Orders issued from time to time during various years. The Government vide Order No. FST-115 of 1966 dated 23-11-1966 extended the working periods of lease and further deferment of royalty payment that had fallen due during 1-4-1965 to 1-4-1966, by one year. Further extension for one year was granted by the Government in the working periods of the current forest leases in the financial year 1972-73 without levy of surcharge and deferment of the instalments of payment of royalty that had fallen due from 1-9-1972 reflecting and pushing forward instalments subsequent by one year, meaning thereby that the instalment, which was due on 1-9-1973 will now become payable by 1-9-1974, in terms of Government Order No. 80-FST of 1973 dated 6-4-1973. Further submission of Mr. Z.A. Shah is that the matter did not end up here. The Government on account of extraordinary bad weather conditions in the year 1974-75 and 1975-76, which seriously affected the working of the forest lessees, granted another general extension of 18 months in the working periods of forest leases, which were current between 1-11-1974 to 31-1-1976 and deferment of 18 months of the instalments of royalty having fallen due from 1-11-1974, resulting and pushing forward subsequent instalments by the said period, in terms of Government Order 157-FST of 1976 dated 14-4-1976. The Government further considered the bad weather conditions of the year 1977 followed by heavy flood in Jammu Division during March thereby affecting the working of the forest lessees and accorded sanction to the grant of one year general extension in the working periods of forest leases, which were current between the period Ist January, 1977 and 31st December, 1977 without any surcharge. The instalments of royalty, which had fallen due from Ist January, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 were also deferred by pushing forward the subsequent instalments by the said period, in sequence, by the Government vide Order No. 61-FST of 1979 dated 27-4-1979. The benefit of this order, however, was not extended to leases in which operation had been concluded and the compartments handed over back to the Departments. This Order, however, also provided that no rebate would be available on any payment made against deferred payments (instalments). The benefit of this order, however, was not extended to leases in which operation had been concluded and the compartments handed over back to the Departments. This Order, however, also provided that no rebate would be available on any payment made against deferred payments (instalments). It is stated that on account of unusual and unprecedented heavy snow fall, first supplementary agreement pertaining to the `snow damaged material came to be executed for different leases in the month of October, 1979. The Forest Department evolved a policy and made certain provisions for re-scheduling of payments and made suitable amendments in the working periods of leases. Certain meaningful changes were made by the first supplementary agreement, which required the Government to determine the price of snow damaged material and further the additional royalty covering snow damaged material to be fixed by the Government and to be added to the royalty instalments already prescribed by the Pricipal Lease Agreement and re-phased the payment specified in Clause 2 of the Principal Lease Agreement in this manner accordingly. This became essential because the area of operation was enlarged and cosiderably increased on account of addition of adjoining compartments to the current leases. The Government, in fact, had undertaken to suitably re-phase the royalty payment schedules in the Principal Lease in order to cover both the salvage operations and price of the salvage material marked thereunder and calculated on the basis of rate supplied by the Government. It clearly connotes that by extending the periods of working out the leases, both Principal Leases and salvage adjoining compartments, re-phasing schedule of payment after the price of the salvage material is added to the instalments of the Principal Leases and in view of the re-schedule phase fixed to enable the lessees to make the payments, had to be undertaken by the Government, but it is stated that this was never done by the Government. It is also submitted that the Government failed to amend the working periods suitably and provide re-scheduling of the royalty instalments after considering the Principal Lease Agreements and the first supplementary agreement. According to appellants, no interest can be charged from them after the inclusion of certain clauses in the first supplementary agreement. In other words, they have questioned the basis on which the interest has been included in the amount specified in Clause 2 of the agreement. According to appellants, no interest can be charged from them after the inclusion of certain clauses in the first supplementary agreement. In other words, they have questioned the basis on which the interest has been included in the amount specified in Clause 2 of the agreement. It is submitted by the appellants that they have been continuously making the payments of royalty proportionate to the timber released from the catching depots/sale depots from time to time under both the agreements. This position, however, continued till the Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 dated 22-2-1984 was issued. Clause 3 of the Order provides that in the event of any default or failure in the payment of royalty or any outstanding, which may be found against the lessee, he shall be liable to pay interest (one-time) @ 25% on the amount due. This Government Order was, however, followed by execution of the second supplementary agreement. This order was issued as a result of amicable settlement. According to the appellants, the amount mentioned in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement cannot be treated as final and relied upon. This is said so in view of the explanation attached to Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement. It is stated that the explanation in its plain language clearly envisages that there is a scope for correction in the arithmetical calculation of the payment amount/due. Such being the position, it is stated that the second supplementary agreement cannot be relied upon so far as the arrears of amount shown in Clause 2 as on 31-3-1984 are mentioned therein. Appellants further relied upon a communication from the Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle, Jammu, vide letter No. 875 of 1986 dated 20-10-1986, in reply to their letter dated 17-12-1985, which reads as under: "OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS: CHENAB CIRCLE: JAMMU Messrs. R.B. Jodha Mal Bishan Lal @TBLCN = AND ALLIED CONCERNS @TBLCN = FOREST LESSEES, JAMMU. No: 875 Dated: 20.10.1986 Sub : Finalisation of royalty accounts. Ref : Your letters No. 5410 to 5422/85 dated 17th December, 1985 and subsequent requests. Dear Sirs, No final figures of royalty and other dues recoverable from your various leases can be worked out and conveyed until the following pending matters are decided by the competent authorities or the court where they are pending decision at present :- 1. Ref : Your letters No. 5410 to 5422/85 dated 17th December, 1985 and subsequent requests. Dear Sirs, No final figures of royalty and other dues recoverable from your various leases can be worked out and conveyed until the following pending matters are decided by the competent authorities or the court where they are pending decision at present :- 1. Difference on account of snow fallen, half broken and dry volume marked on account of conversion formula. 2. Interests chargeable. 3. Surcharge on extensions after 1979. 4. Award in case of your Marmat lease challenged in High Court. 5. Volume alleged to have been left in your Padar 1974-78 lease-arbitration application filed by you in the High Court. 6. Sinking fund and Development funds chargeable on snow fallen, half broken and dry volume. 7. Various claims made by you for rectification of certain other bills. You can well imagine the difficulties this office is faced with in arriving at a certain final figure of dues in each lease, pending settlement of the issues mentioned above. The deposits made by you in the form of FDRs against the demands created by the Department under Court orders or otherwise, can also not be adjusted in relevant accounts till the matters enumerated are finally settled. Till such time this is possible, you have to bear with us. Sd/- CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CHENAB CIRCLE : JAMMU. 15. In view of the position emerging from the aforesaid reply, it is submitted that amounts mentioned in the second supplementary agreement cannot be accepted. The amounts have been inserted in the agreements much later at the back of the appellants/petitioners lessees because at the time when agreements were signed in 1979, many columns were left blank for want of detailed information by the Department, which could only come after issue of pending bills, which process continued till/after September 1984, as is clearly elicited from the aforesaid reply/communication by the Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle, Jammu. 16. It was next stated that the amount mentioned in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement payable by the appellants cannot be said to be final. The explanation to Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement, in unequivocal terms, enables both the parties to seek settlement of accounts, irrespective of payments made under the agreements. 16. It was next stated that the amount mentioned in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement payable by the appellants cannot be said to be final. The explanation to Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement, in unequivocal terms, enables both the parties to seek settlement of accounts, irrespective of payments made under the agreements. This is even admitted by the respondents in their counter that the amount mentioned in the second supplementary agreement are inclusive of interest. If that be the position, the respondents could not have issued revised bills in May, 1985, after indicating the amount in the second supplementary agreement due from the appellants. It seems that the respondents were not satisfied with the amount mentioned in the agreements and issued revised bills with regard to the interest. This shows that the parties never agreed to the alleged amounts in arrears and the question was still open, irrespective of the so-called amounts specified in the agreement. Had the amounts mentioned in the agreements intented to be paid by the appellants been reflected along with showing the correct position pertaining to the arrears due from the lessees till 31st December, 1984, no further bills could have been issued till 31-12-1985. In case the amount still remains in arrears after 31-3-1984, then it would attract one time interest at the rate of 25% and this, therefore, necessitated in depth scrutiny to finally determined the due amounts, the date of payments before any interest is claimed to be chargeable on such amount. Even the respondents have admitted that despite the mention of arrears in the second supplementary agreements, the requiste exercise is yet to be carried out and the arrears position can be known only after all the documents and records relied upon, are examined/re-examined and this is expressly borne out from letter No. 875 dated 20-10-1986 from Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle, Jammu to the appellants (quoted supra). 17. It is, however, pleaded by the appellants that despite all these controversies, they continued making payments of the amounts due. Further submission made by the appellants is that without the consent of the concerned lessees, the respondents having not adjusted the amounts in their respective leases, in which deposits were made, but in any other of their leases of the same group having lumped together all the leases. Further submission made by the appellants is that without the consent of the concerned lessees, the respondents having not adjusted the amounts in their respective leases, in which deposits were made, but in any other of their leases of the same group having lumped together all the leases. In such event one time 25% interest should be applicable only if any amount remains in arrears after adjustment of security payment of such leases in combined account and not otherwise. However, the appellants/petitioners submitted that they have paid royalty amount in entirety and nothing remains due against them and no interest is payable by them. 18. According to the respondents-State, while various lessees continued to work in the compartments allotted to them under the Principal Agreements and due to heavy snow fall in the year 1979, there was a huge damage in the forest compartments of the State, the Government decided and allotted this snow damaged material from various compartments to the various lessees holding Principal Leases in adjacent/adjoining compartments. Supplementary agreements to this effect came to be executed and signed between the parties. The forest lessees had to work in the leases within a specific time, however, subject to grant of general extensions from time to time by the Chief Conservator of Forests. This power of grant of extensions in the lease periods, however, came to be withdrawn by the Government vide Order No. 22-FST of 1982 dated 6-3-1982. This order though was quashed by the High Court in writ petitions, the power to grant of extentions was restored to the Chief Conservator of Forests. State went in appeal against this order and it was at that time that the appellants-forest lessees approched the Government for amicable settlement of the matter and a committee was constituted, and a decision was taken, in pursuance of which Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 dated 22-2-1984 was issued followed by the second supplementary agreement. Mr. A.H. Naik learned Advocate General, submitted that Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement clearly mentions the amount due against the lessees, which they were under an obligation to pay after having executed the agreement and bound by its promise. According to Mr. Naik, the amount specified in the agreements is the amount outstanding against the lessees as arrears of royalty. According to Mr. Naik, the amount specified in the agreements is the amount outstanding against the lessees as arrears of royalty. It is further stated that the lessees, if at all, had any doubt about the calculation of the amount of royalty specified in Clause 2 of the agreement, the same should not have been signed by them. Once the agreement has been signed by the appellants-lessees, it assumes affirmation of the amount mentioned in the agreement on the account of royalty outstanding against the lessees. It is stated that the appellants have admitted that at the filing of the writ petition, they knew about the amount of royalty mentioned in the agreement, but still they did not challenge it in the writ petition. The appellants are, therfore, under an obligation to pay the amount mentioned in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement with up-to-date interest. Mr. Naik further emphasized and reiterated that the amount mentioned in the agreement, being an admitted amount, the appellants have no escape, but are under obligation to make the payment of this amount with interest, as concluded by the learned Single Judge. However, the total amount outstanding against the lessees is mentioned in the agreement executed between the parties in pursuance of Government Order No. FST-205 of 1984 and the appellants cannot raise any grievance with regard to the said amount and its payment with interest in terms of and covered by Principal Lease Agreement. 19. On going through various Circulars, Orders and Notifications issued by the Government from time to time pertaining to general extensions, deferments in the payments of royalty and having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the spinal question that arises in these appeals is as to whether the appellants/petitioners are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9%, vis-a-vis timber which was covered by the Principal Agreement. It is not in dispute that certain changes were made with the execution of the first supplementary agreement. The first supplementary agreement made a specific provision with regard to the re-scheduling of the payment of the royalty instalments and suitable amendment in the working periods and of the leases in particular, under Clauses 11 and 12 thereof. It is not in dispute that certain changes were made with the execution of the first supplementary agreement. The first supplementary agreement made a specific provision with regard to the re-scheduling of the payment of the royalty instalments and suitable amendment in the working periods and of the leases in particular, under Clauses 11 and 12 thereof. The appellants/petitioners were liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the belated payment of royalty, however, subject to general extensions in the period till the execution of the first supplementary agreement of 1979. The first supplementary agreement further specifically provides that in view of the snow fallen damaged material in the affected compartments and handing over the same for exploitation to those willing amongst the forest lessees under the current leases, the agreement is to enlarge their existing/working lease coupes. It clearly implies that the area of operation is extended and thecompartments containing snow damaged material are added to the compartments covered by the Principal Lease. The clauses of supplementary agreement further provide that the State Government, after taking into account the state-situation of the damaged material and the prevalent current leases, shall determine and fix the rate of the damaged material species-wise. It is also provided in the first supplementary agreement to suitably amend the Principal Lease Agreement in respect of working periods in clauses 11 and 12 therein and of rephasing royalty instalments payment schedule therein, as a consequence of the inclusion of the price fixed, as aforesaid, of the damaged material. This clearly shows that the re-phasing of the royalty instalment payments schedule of the Principal Agreement has undergone a complete change because of the inclusion of the price of the snow damaged material. It also provided that since the area of operation of the Principal Agreement having enlarged by the supplementary agreement, the parties are required to execute extension agreements, by adding amendment slip in the Principal Agreement (extension of time granted to be in proportionate with the salvage requirement). It was further provided in the clauses of the first supplementary agreement that additional royalty that covered the snow damaged material and fixed by the Government is to be added with the royalty instalments already provided in the Principal Lease Agreement. It was further provided in the clauses of the first supplementary agreement that additional royalty that covered the snow damaged material and fixed by the Government is to be added with the royalty instalments already provided in the Principal Lease Agreement. The Government, however, for this purpose was to suitably re-phase the royalty payment schedule under the Principal Agreement in order to cover both the salvage operations and the price of the salvage material marked thereunder and calculated on the basis of the rate supplied by the said agreement. It is pertinent to point out that, in considering the Principal Lease Agreement and the first supplementary agreement, neither the working periods suitably amended nor the re-scheduling of the royalty payment was provided by the Government. It is, therefore, as a consequence of inaction of the Government to provide re-scheduling of the royalty instalment payments, absence of revised due dates of payment and specific amount payable on a particular date, the appellants/petitioners claim to be relieved of their liabilty to make payments in accordance with Clause 2 of the Principal Agreement. According to the appellants/petitioners, Clause 2 of the Principal Agreement would not be attracted since 9% interest could be charged only in case of non-payment of royalty instalments to be fixed under the said Clause. This having not been done, the Government is not entitled to charge interest of 9% on the timber covered by the Principal Agreement, from them. The case of the appellants/petitioners is, therefore, that after the execution of the first supplementary agreement, no interest can be charged from them. It is, therefore, stated that as a consequence of the execution of the first supplementary agreement of 1979 and in the absence of re-scheduling the payment of royalty and the period of making the payment, the State cannot insist on the payment of interest. That the liability of the appellants/petitioners to pay interest, as provided by proviso to Clause 2 of the Principal Agreement, stands absolved with the substitution of Clauses 2, 11 and 12 of the Principal Agreement by the first supplementary agreement. The appellants/petitioners, however, claimed to have made the payment of royalty continuously proportionate to the timber released from the catching/sale depots from time to time, both under the Principal Agreement as well as the first supplementary agreement. The appellants/petitioners, however, claimed to have made the payment of royalty continuously proportionate to the timber released from the catching/sale depots from time to time, both under the Principal Agreement as well as the first supplementary agreement. The Government, however, as a consequence of amicable settlement, issued Order No. FST-205 of 1984 dated 22-2-1984 followed by second supplementary agreement. Clause 3 of the Order provides that in the event of any default or failure in the payment of royalty or any outstanding, which may be against him, the lessee shall be liable to pay interest @25% on the amount remaining due as on 31-12-1985 (one-time). However, in the explanation to Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement, there is scope for correction in the arithmetical calculation of the amount payable/due. Now the question arises as to whether the amount mentioned in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement is final in view of the said explanation. The appellants/petitioners stated that explanation added in Clause 2 of the second supplementary agreement itself does not treat the figure due as on 31-3-1984 mentioned therein as accurate and this is said so because the record of the lessor has also to be examined and the lessees have to be granted a liberty with regard to the arrears, if any. The Chief Conservator of Forests, therefore, could not determine the amount payble by the lessees with certainty, as it involved a detailed process and minute examination of the record, both of the lessees and the lessor, and also at certain stage, may require the assistance of the lessees in ascertaining the amount payble by the lessees. A reference, in this context, may aptly be made to Circular No. 3855-3905 dated 13-2-1984 of the Chief Conservator of Forest. It is clearly enumerated from the aforesaid Circular that the quantum of interest to be charged on the snow fallen material has not been made clear, in regulating the provisions provided for in supplementary agreement the payment of royalty after re-phasing the schedule under the Principal Agreement, which should have been worked out to assess the interest chargeable on the belated payment, had not been done and that the re-phasing of the amount due should have been done, if the interest had to be charged. The aforesaid Circular further reveals the decision taken by the committee headed by Chief Conservator of Forests that the billed amount should be revised in the instalments up to June, 1983, has been in the same manner, as provided in the Principal Agreement, and in case the amount that fell due at the end of a particular period remained outstanding, interest should be charged at the same rate, proportions as is provided in the original agreement, i.e., the same as is in the Principal Agreement. The decision, however, stood assailed by the appellants/petitioners, mainly on the ground that it is contrary to the express provisions in the Clauses of the agreement and also the Government Orders. The re-phasing of the royalty instalment payments, which was required to be done in 1979 after the execution of the first supplementary agreement, could not now been done after the expiry of five years on 31-12-1984. The agreement clearly envisaged that charge of interest is primarily linked with re-phasing of the royalty instalments, the period fixed and the amount and the rate at which it has to be paid, and also must be known to the parties, required to be made before time. It is clearly established from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that there was neither re-phasing of the instalments nor the time making the payment of royalty was fixed, and nor these were communicated to the appellants/petitioners by the State, of course, subject to deferment of payment and general extension, the interest in such event, it is stated, cannot be charged retrospectively. 20. What is, therefore, indisputably deducible from the aforesaid discussion is that no interest can be calculated until and unless the re-phasing of the instalments fixed in the Principal Agreement, as provided for in supplementary agreement, is carried out, which has so far not been done. It may further be pointed out that the same, therefore, could not be done unilaterally. It certainly required an in-depth examination of the record, both of the lessor and the lessees, sufficient time to work out the accurate figure. The lessees are also required to be associated and before finalizing the amount due and recoverable from them, they be also given full hearing. The Forest Department is also required to follow the conversion formula strictly for calculating the royalty arrears. The lessees are also required to be associated and before finalizing the amount due and recoverable from them, they be also given full hearing. The Forest Department is also required to follow the conversion formula strictly for calculating the royalty arrears. It is also required to determine interest, if any, to be charged during all these years on the belated royalty payments and also required to be settled by associating the lessees, as for the payment of interest it was necessary that due amount stands pre-determined and date of amount is also prescribed pre-determined and in this case, both are absent. 21. In view of the aforesaid position, the submissions made by the appellants/petitioners, in our view, have a great substance. The appellants/petitioners are also right in their submissions that unless they know in advance that particular amount on account of royalty was payable on a particular date and having failed to pay the same, they would not be held liable to pay interest penalty. That since no such schedule was fixed, nor they had the knowledge of any liability on any particular date, no such liability could be imposed at a late stage. It is clearly borne out from the record that the procedure adopted by the respondents, while working out dues including the interest, in view of the admitted position of the documents on the record, is contrary to the express provision in clauses of the agreement. Such factors explicitly delineated above have not been taken into consideration, nor the records of the lessor and the lessees have been examined. It is violative of the principals of natural justice, as the appellants/petitioners were never heard before the issuance of impugned interest bills. The impugned interest bills issued by the respondents are, therefore, apparently contrary to law as also the agreement itself. This clearly necessitates the determination of the liabilities of the appellants/petitioners and raising fresh bills in accordance with the provisions and clauses of the agreements and the documents on record, so as to resolve the despute between the parties finally. 22. The impugned interest bills issued by the respondents are, therefore, apparently contrary to law as also the agreement itself. This clearly necessitates the determination of the liabilities of the appellants/petitioners and raising fresh bills in accordance with the provisions and clauses of the agreements and the documents on record, so as to resolve the despute between the parties finally. 22. In view the above, the appeals are decided with the following directions that : (i) The Forest Department shall work out interest bills along with dues and interest, afresh, outstanding and recoverable from the forest lessees; (ii) The Forest Department shall first determine the principal amount by applying `conversion formula and then the interest be charged on it; (iii) Since the determination of question in respect of dues and interest is involved, the Forest Department shall also take into account the benefit of incentives and rebate under Clause 2 of the Principal Agreement, in respect of each financial year; (iv) The Forest Department shall further consider the credit, to which the appellants/petitioners are entitled to, of the awaited amounts on the date of passing of the timber by the Department, supplied by the lessees to the Forest Department for their further supplies, to Railways, DGS&D and other Government Departments under Clauses 13 and 14 in respective lease accounts; (v) Respondents shall further ascertain as to whether any belated payment was made in terms of Clause 2 of the Principal Lease Agreement till execution of the first supplementary agreements, after giving effect to the general extensions and deferment of royalty instalments, while determining the amounts due and raising bills against the appellants/petitioners; (vi) The Forest Department further, while working out the dues against the lessees, shall give a break-up of the amounts of the interest or surcharge, or on any other count in each of the bills accordingly; (vii) While determining the accounts due from the lessees, the Forest Department shall also consider their record and the record of the lessor, and associate them in the exercise, so as to ascertain that the pending bills have already been cleared and if not cleared, for which period the bills were not paid and whether interest or surcharge in terms of provisions in clauses of the agreement is chargeable, and work out accordingly; (viii) After such amount is determined, and if the Forest Department finds that the said amount is not covered by the payments already made including the deposits/securities in the Court, such amount shall carry interest @ 25% (penalty) in terms of second supplementary agreement; (ix) The Forest Department, after working out the interest bills afresh, if finds that the party has already made the payment, which falls excess, such excess amount shall be refunded to the party cocerned along with interest @ 9% per annum, besides releasing the FDRs/Bank Guarantees/Personal Securities etc., furnished by the parties; (x) After the bills are worked out in the manner indicated above, the Forest Department shall determine the refund to/further payment by the lessees, therafter; (xi) Till the fresh bills are determined, the Forest Department shall hold the security amounts of the lessees, and if still any amount is found payable by any party, the same amount shall be adjustable from the said security and out of the interest accrued thereon, along with 25% (one time) penalty interest in terms of second supplementary agreement; (xii) In case the lessee has paid the royalty dues in entirety in all the leases held by him by or before the end of December, 1985 along with Sinking Fund and Development Fund dues to the acknowledgement of the Forest Department, the Department shall recommend the case for release of securities and FDRs, if any; (xiii) In working out the dues against the lessees, the Forest Department shall also take into account the substitution of Clauses 2, 11 and 12 of the Principal Agreement by the provisions in clauses of the first supplementary agreements and also absence of re-phasing of the payment schedules and period for making the payments be taken note of, besides strictly adhering to the `conversion formula, as the interest in no case be calculated until and unless the re-phasing of the instalments fixed in the terms, as provided in the supplementary agreements, is carried out. 23. This exercise shall be completed by the Forest Department under the supervision of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests within a period of four months from the date of this order and in the said exercise, paticipation of at least one representative of each lessee shall be permitted, so as to resolve the controversy once for all. The appellants/petitioners lessees are, however, left free, in case of any difficulty arises in/during the execution of the order, to approach the Court for seeking further directions. 24. The appeals are disposed of in terms indicated above.