Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1033 (MAD)

Mathurambal v. District Collector, Perambalur

2013-02-19

M.JAICHANDREN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the president of the Mettupalayam Panchayat, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. There are several plantations and fruit yielding trees, within the jurisdiction of the said panchayat, under the category of `social forestry'. 3. It has been further stated that the third respondent had issued a letter, dated 13.8.2012, requiring the various panchayat presidents to express their willingness to take the timber felled in the areas coming under the category of `social forestry'. In the said letter, certain conditions have been prescribed. The presidents of the panchayat had been asked to furnish various details within the time limit prescribed therein, which was the 15th of September, 2012. The presidents of the panchayats had been directed to furnish the financial viability certificate (Cash Balance Certificate), for availing the benefit under the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.260, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 9.3.1984. However, without giving the benefits provided in the said government order to the panchayats concerned, the trees which had been felled, had been brought for sale, by public auction, by a notification, dated 12.10.2012. 4. It has been further stated that the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 13.8.2012, stating that the public auction would be held on 25.10.2012, for the sale of the trees in question. It had been further stated that the Mettupalayam Panchayat would not be entitled to claim the trees, as the said panchayat had not shown its financial viability, and there was no resolution passed by the said panchayat, for the purchase of the trees. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Counter affidavits had been filed on behalf of the third and the fourth respondents. It has been stated that the Mettupalayam Panchayat had not obtained a certificate, regarding its financial viability, from the Assistant Director of the Panchayat concerned. Further, as there was no resolution passed by the said panchayat, for the purchase of the trees in question, the public auction had been held on 25.10.2012, as scheduled. The fourth respondent was the highest bidder in the said auction. He had deposited a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, as the earnest money deposit. Further, as there was no resolution passed by the said panchayat, for the purchase of the trees in question, the public auction had been held on 25.10.2012, as scheduled. The fourth respondent was the highest bidder in the said auction. He had deposited a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, as the earnest money deposit. He had submitted the highest bid of Rs.35,00,000/- in the public auction, held on 25.10.2012. 6. It has been further stated that there is no vested right in the Mettupalayam Panchayat to claim that it is entitled to purchase the felled trees, as a matter of right, as it could not produce the financial viability certificate, as required by the authorities concerned. Further, there was no resolution passed by the Mettupalayam Panchayat, for the purchase of the trees in question, even though a notice had been issued to the said panchayat to show its financial viability and to produce the necessary resolution for the purchase of the trees. In such circumstances, the trees in question had been brought for sale, by public auction, by way of a notification, dated 12.10.2012. 7. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.260, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 9.3.1984, does not give any right or authority to the panchayats to purchase the felled trees, even though they do not have the financial viability necessary for such purchase. Further, the price of the timber cannot be disclosed by the authorities concerned, in advance, as it would give an indication of the value of the timber, to the auction purchasers, to make their bids. It would be an unhealthy practice to disclose the value of the timber, by way of an advance notice to the panchayats concerned, before the finding out their financial viability. Further, no indication had been given by Mettupalayam Panchayat for purchasing the trees. There was no proper response from the said panchayat, even though it had been intimated about the requirements necessary for exercising its option, to purchase the trees in question. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 8. There was no proper response from the said panchayat, even though it had been intimated about the requirements necessary for exercising its option, to purchase the trees in question. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsesls appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that no serious interest had been shown, by the Mettupalayam Panchayat, for the purchase of the trees in question. Even though a communication had been sent by the third respondent, dated 13.8.2012, asking the Mettupalayam Panchayat to submit its financial viability certificate, on or before 15.9.2012, no such certificate had been sent by the Mettupalayam Panchayat, as per the said communication. 9. Further, it is not open to the Mettupalayam Panchayat to claim that it has a vested right to purchase the trees in question, even though it does not possess the necessary financial viability for doing so. Even though an option had been given to the Mettupalaym Panchayat to purchase the trees in question, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.260, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 9.3.1984, it had not availed the same. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it could not exercise its option to purchase the trees in question, as the authorities concerned had not fixed the price for the said trees cannot be accepted. It is for the panchayat concerned to show its financial vialbility for the purchase of the trees and to indicate the price at which it is willing to purchase the same. As no such offer had been made and as there was no clear indication given by the Mettupalayam Panchayat, for the purchase of the trees, the authorities concerned had sold the said trees, by way of a public auction, held on 25.10.2012. The fourth respondent was declared to be the highest bidder, as he had offered a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-, for the felled trees. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-as the earnest money deposit. As such, the claims made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.