ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following directions: 1. A writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the order passed by the Conservator of Forest, Seoni dated 11.2.1992 (Annexure H) prematurely terminating petitioner's agreement in respect of lot No. 1860 Dhooma North Seoni Forest Division on illegal pretext. 2. A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued for restraining the respondents from enforcing recovery of the alleged loss to the State Government in the redisposal of Tendu leaves of lot No. 1860 Dhooma North Seoni Forest Division for which the petitioner was originally appointed purchaser under Agreement (Annexure-E); and 3. A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued for restraining respondents from abusing the monopoly under the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1964. 2. Facts, in short, relevant for the decision of this case are as under: The trade of tendu leaves is governed under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Under section 5 of the Act, the total restriction is on purchase and sale of tendu leaves except as provided thereunder. Under section 12 of the Act, there is a procedure to the Government to dispose of tendu leaves in such a manner as it may deem proper. Section 11 of the Act provides for the registration of bidi manufacturer or an exporter of tendu leaves who are entitled for being appointed as purchaser. The State Minor Forest Produce (Trading and Development) Cooperative Federation Ltd. is a Government cooperative society consisting of officials of the Forest Department and acts as an agent under section 4(1) of the Act for disposal of tendu leaves. In the relevant year, the State divided the relevant forest area into units and tendu leaves collected from the units through the sub-agents were stored. The leaves so collected and stored in the godowns were disposed of by invitation of tenders from intending purchasers. Respondent No.2, Managing Director, M.P. State Minor Forest Produce (Trading and Development) Cooperative Federation Limited issued a tender notice on 6.8.1991 inviting tenders for appointment as purchasers of collected and stored tendu leaves of 1991 season. Alongwith the tender notice, a schedule was appended describing the details of lots, names of godowns and quantity of tendu leaves stored in respective lots. Alongwith the tender notice, a schedule was appended describing the details of lots, names of godowns and quantity of tendu leaves stored in respective lots. The petitioner made an offer in respect of lot No. 1860 of Dhooma which was accepted by the respondents. The petitioner's offer accepted by the respondents was for Rs. 892/- per standard bag of tendu leaves. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- as earnest money. Out of the earnest money deposit, a sum of Rs. 1,12,219.09 was adjusted towards security deposit while similar amount of Rs. 1,12,219.09 was adjusted as advance sale price. Rest amount Rs. 25,561.82 remained with the respondents. 3. An agreement was executed between the parties on 8.10.1991. A copy of the agreement is on record as Annexure B. As per agreement, the price of tendu leaves was payable in four instalments falling due on 1.11.1991, 15.12.1991, 1.2.1992 and 15.3.1992. It was also provided that in case there is delay in deposit of the instalments, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 0.06% per day. It is also provided that on deposit of the instalment, 1/4th quantity shall be delivered to the purchaser promptly. On 14.10.1991 (Annexure C) work order was issued. 4. The petitioner deposited Rs. 6,63,890/- towards first instalment on 31.10.1991. The respondents issued release order on 27.11.1991 for 629 standard bags by Annexure E. The petitioner was delivered 202.850 standard bags out of 629 standard bags. The details of which are stated in Annexure F. The contention of the petitioner is that inspite of his request for the delivery of the remaining quantity of the bags of 1st instalment, the respondents did not deliver the same to the petitioner. As the remaining quantity was not delivered to the petitioner, the petitioner could not deposit 2nd instalment and further instalments and because of the default on 17.2.1992, the agreement of the petitioner was terminated by the Conservator of Forest, Seoni. As per the termination order Annexure H, the default was for the deposit of 2nd instalment by the petitioner. On 10.3.1992, the petitioner was informed telegraphically about the reauction of the balance tendu leaves of lot No. 1860 scheduled for 25.3.1992. Petitioner though protested, but the remaining tendu leaves were reauctioned in favour of M/s Sahu Brothers, Narsinghpur at the rate of Rs. 675/- per standard bag. The purchaser deposited part amount of his offer Rs. 4,68,438.02. On 10.3.1992, the petitioner was informed telegraphically about the reauction of the balance tendu leaves of lot No. 1860 scheduled for 25.3.1992. Petitioner though protested, but the remaining tendu leaves were reauctioned in favour of M/s Sahu Brothers, Narsinghpur at the rate of Rs. 675/- per standard bag. The purchaser deposited part amount of his offer Rs. 4,68,438.02. Thereafter he could not deposit the auctioned amount and the tendu leaves were again reauctioned at the rate of Rs. 370/- per standard bag. As the respondents suffered loss, a notice raising a demand of Rs. 4,34,015.32 was issued against petitioner on 11.3.1993 (Annexure J). The petitioner protested to the aforesaid demand on the ground that the petitioner was not delivered the first lot as he deposited first instalment amount. A reply is on record Annexure K dated 28.4.1993. The respondents did not satisfy with the reply and issued Revenue Recovery Certificate against the petitioner which was caused the petitioner to file the present petition. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that termination of the petitioner's tender dated 11.2.1992, Annexure H, is illegal as it was a premature termination of the agreement. The respondents were at fault as they have not delivered total 269 standard bags towards the first instalments inspite of the recovery of the price for that quantity. The balance quantity of the tendu leave was reauctioned while the petitioner had paid price for that quantity. The purchaser of the first reauction, after depositing the part price, became defaulter and did not deposit the balance amount and the tendu leaves were again reauctioned at a very lower price to the third purchaser without notice to the petitioner. In aforesaid circumstances, when for the first time the tendu leaves were reauctioned and M/s Sahu Brothers of Narsinghpur was declared as successful bidder then the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss of second reauction. On the aforesaid ground, this petition has been filed, challenging the premature termination of the contract and also for the quashment of R.R.C. 6. The respondents filed their reply in the case and as per reply, it is stated that the petitioner's offer at the rate of Rs. 892/- per standard bag for total quantity of tendu leaves 2516.128 standard bags was accepted. The total price of the tendu leaves as per the offer was Rs. The respondents filed their reply in the case and as per reply, it is stated that the petitioner's offer at the rate of Rs. 892/- per standard bag for total quantity of tendu leaves 2516.128 standard bags was accepted. The total price of the tendu leaves as per the offer was Rs. 22,44,381.72 P. The petitioner paid for the first instalment for 629 standard bags Rs. 6,63,890-. on 31.10.1991. The delivery order was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer cum Managing Director on 27.11.1991. Annexure R-2. The petitioner filed an application for issuance of a transport permit which was allowed by the D.F.O. on 23.12.1991 Annexure R-3 for 628 standard bags. The petitioner was intending to transport all the tendu leaves out of State of M.P. The petitioner was permitted to do so and a subsidiary transport permit for 202.850 standard bags was issued. The respondents issued delivery order of entire tendu leaves of 628 standard bags but the petitioner did not lift the entire quantity and left remaining quantity into godowns for the purpose of transporting it to out of State on issuance of subsidiary permit. Thereafter petitioner did not approach the Range Officer, Dhooma for issuance of further subsidiary transport permit. The petitioner himself is liable for not transporting remaining quantity of tendu leaves and being a defaulter in payment of second instalment, petitioner's agreement was terminated on 17.2.1992 and remaining quantity of tendu leaves were put to reauction. Before termination of the agreement, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not submit any reply. Before putting the remaining leaves to first reauction, the petitioner was again informed for the payment of remaining instalment fallen due to avoid termination of the contract, but petitioner did not avail this opportunity. The remaining 2313.273 standards bags were put to reauction as second instalment was not paid. The same was purchased by M/s Sahu Brothers at the rate of Rs. 675/- per standard bag resulting a loss of Rs. 5,01,980.24. The second purchaser paid an amount of Rs. 4,88,436.02 against the first instalments of Rs. 3,90,365.02 and took delivery of 578 standard bags of tendu leaves and did not pay further second, third and fourth instalments and not lifted the balance quantity of tendu leaves. 675/- per standard bag resulting a loss of Rs. 5,01,980.24. The second purchaser paid an amount of Rs. 4,88,436.02 against the first instalments of Rs. 3,90,365.02 and took delivery of 578 standard bags of tendu leaves and did not pay further second, third and fourth instalments and not lifted the balance quantity of tendu leaves. Thereafter, balance quantity of 1737.975 standard bags was again put to reauction and in the second reauction, Premchand Sitaram Sahu purchased remaining standard bags at the rate of Rs. 370/- per standard bags and paid the price of the same amounting to Rs. 6,43,050.75. Respondents suffered a loss in the aforesaid transaction because of petitioner. Stating aforesaid, respondents 1, 2 and 3 prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. From the perusal of Annexure J., it appears that an amount of Rs. 4,34,015.32 has been demanded against the petitioner. 8. Contention of the petitioner is that when the second purchaser purchased the remaining lot including unlifted quantity of first lot, then the petitioner was not liable for the recovery of the loss caused due to second reauction. The respondent were successful in reauctioning the quantity of remaining tendu leaves. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held liable in respect of ultimate loss which the respondents have suffered. From the loss which may be ascertained after reauction of the tendu leaves to Mis. Sahu Borthers, the amount paid by the petitioner .including the earnest money may be given due adjustment and after the aforesaid adjustment is granted, the petitioner may be held liable for any recovery. The respondents have not calculated the actual amount of loss in the matter and have wrongly held liable towards the loss because of second reauction. If the aforesaid amount is properly calculated, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss as calculated by the respondents. From the perusal of aforesaid facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner initially deposited earnest money Rs. 2,50,000/- with the respondents, though out of this amount, some amount was adjusted towards security deposit, advance sale price and balance is still lying with the respondents. Apart from this, the petitioner deposited first instalment, though lifted only a small quantatity of the tendu leaves and thereafter the tendu leaves were reauctioned in favour of M/s Sahu Brothers. 2,50,000/- with the respondents, though out of this amount, some amount was adjusted towards security deposit, advance sale price and balance is still lying with the respondents. Apart from this, the petitioner deposited first instalment, though lifted only a small quantatity of the tendu leaves and thereafter the tendu leaves were reauctioned in favour of M/s Sahu Brothers. When the respondents have successfully got another purchaser by reauctioning the tendu leaves, then the maximum responsibility which may be fixed upon the petitioner is the difference of price between first auction and reauction of remaining leaves. M/s Sahu Brothers purchased 2,313.273 standard bags of tendu leaves while the petitioner lifted only 202.850 standard bags. Thus, for the loss of remaining bags, amount may be ascertained and recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is also entitled for the adjustment of the amount which the petitioner had already paid towards the payment of first instalment and earnest money to the respondents. As per respondents, after reauction to M/s Sahu Brothers, the loss which the respondents suffered is Rs. 4,34,015.32. The petitioner has duly deposited some amount towards unlifted tendu leaves and also towards earnest money. If the aforesaid amount is properly adjusted towards the aforesaid loss, then the petitioner cannot be held liable for the payment of the amount, which is demanded from the petitioner by the respondents. The maximum liability of the petitioner is the difference of the price of reauction to M/s Sahu Brothers (the difference between the price offered by the petitioner and by M/s Sahu Brothers). If the amount offered by M/s Sahu Brothers is taken into consideration for 2,313.273 standard bags at the rate of Rs. 675/- per bag, he offered Rs. 15,61,459.27 for the remaining quantity. Petitioner made offer for the entire quantity of 2516.128 standard bags at the rate of Rs. 892/- per standard bag which comes to Rs. 22,44,386.17. The difference between both is Rs. 6,82,926.90. The petitioner has already paid Rs. 6,63,890/- towards first instahnent. Apart from security deposit of earnest money as stated hereinabove, the aforesaid amount deserves to be given due adjustment. If by second reauction, the respondents have suffered some loss, then the liability cannot be shifted to the petitioner. Second purchaser M/s Sahu Brothers is liable for the aforesaid loss, if any, caused by second reauction. 6,63,890/- towards first instahnent. Apart from security deposit of earnest money as stated hereinabove, the aforesaid amount deserves to be given due adjustment. If by second reauction, the respondents have suffered some loss, then the liability cannot be shifted to the petitioner. Second purchaser M/s Sahu Brothers is liable for the aforesaid loss, if any, caused by second reauction. As soon as the respondents declared successful bidder in reauction, the petitioner is liable only for the loss caused to the respondents because of first reauction. The petitioner's liability cannot be increased by 2nd reauction by the respondents. The petitioner was never noticed in respect of second reauction and for that, the petitioner cannot beheld liable, but the respondents have imposed liability of that second reauction on the petitioner which is unjust and petitioner cannot be held liable for this. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is held that the petitioner is liable, towards the loss which caused to the respondents because of reauction of tendu leaves after notices to the petitioner and the loss on reauction may be recovered from the petitioner. If on subsequent reauction, the respondents have suffered any loss that cannot be recovered from the petitioner. The respondents shall calculate the loss on first reauction and after giving due adjustment to the petitioner towards his deposit for the 1st instalment and the earnest money etc. which is lying with the respondents the amount be ascertained and thereafter if any amount remains due to the petitioner that may be recovered from him. 10. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and recovery notice is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 4 to recalcute the amount as directed hereinabove and thereafter if any amount is found due to the petitioner, petitioner be directed to deposit the amount and if the petitioner is entitled for refund of any amount, that may be refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law. For this purpose, petitioner may also submit his claim to the respondents but within a period of 15 days from today which shall be taken into consideration by respondent No. 4 while calculating the amount as directed hereinabove. The respondent No.4 shall decide the matter within two months from the date of communication of this order. No order as to cost.