W.P.(C) No.7521 of 2014 It is the case of the petitioner that he is a contractor who had entered into agreement as per Ext.Nos.P1 and P2 with the third respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Palakkad for felling and transporting of timber from the Forest Department Teak plantation and that the agreements were for a period of three months from 14.6.2013. The agreement period was extended as per Ext. Nos.P4 and P5 orders from 14.6.2013 to 13.10.2013 and it was further extended from 14.10.2013 to 12.12.2013 under the orders of the 2nd respondent Additional Chief Conservator of Forests, as per condition No.14 of Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. It is the case of the petitioner that due to climatic problems and disputes with regard to loading and unloading, he could not complete the work within the time stipulated and that therefore by Ext.P5 order, the 2nd respondent granted extension from 13.12.2013 to 10.3.2014. Since there were labour problems, he submitted Ext.P6 complaint on 22.2.2014 requesting to grant protection for loading and unloading, it is averred. Since the work could not be completed with the above said extended time limit, Ext.Nos.P7 and P8 applications for extension of period was filed before the first respondent Government of Kerala. Due to the expiry of the extended period of contract agreement on 10.3.2014, the petitioner has approached this court with the following reliefs:
(i) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of order or direction permitting the petitioner to fell and transport timber in terms of Ext.P1 and P2 within a time to be fixed by this Court.
(ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 and P9 and grant extension of time for completing the work as per Ext.P1 and P2 within a time to be fixed by this Court.”
2. The third respondent, Divisional Forest Officer has filed a statement dated 31.3.2014, in which it is stated in paragraph Nos.11 to 14 thereof as follows:
11. It is submitted that on expiry of the contract period, the above two plantations were resumed to the Department by drawing mahazar dated 11.3.2014. The contractor had to fell balance 926 trees in 1949 Teak plantation 1180 trees in 1950 Teak Plantation. He had also to transport the balance quantity of felled timber and Fire wood / Billet to the Timber Depot/dumping depot.
12. The timber to be transported contains soft wood trees also and is easily perishable in nature. The summer season has begun and there are chances of Forest Fire in the area. The timber and fire wood in the coupe are lying exposed to sun and rain which would cause deterioration of its quality, which would in turn affect its price and may cause loss to the State exchequer.
13. As per condition No.14 of the contract, “If the contractor fails to undertake and complete the work within the specified time, or if he leaves any item of work undone, the Divisional Forest Officer may, at his discretion make other arrangements for carrying out the work left undone either departmentally or through other agencies at the risk and loss of the defaulting contractor, and loss, if any, incurred by the department on this account will be recovered from the security amount or from the other assets of the contractor.”
14. It is submitted that the performance of the petitioner in working down the timber was very poor. The non-completion of the work and delay in handling back the contract area to the department will adversely affect the next planting operation in the area during 2014-15 which will affect the very nature of the area and cause revenue loss to Government.
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 2.4.2014 reverting the contentions in the above said statement of third respondent and paragraph No.3 of the said reply affidavit reads as follows:
“It is submitted that the fact that there was labour disputes for transporting due to incessant rains and collapse of road bridge are not disputed in the statement. It only says that the performance of the petitioner contract is very poor and non compliance of the work and delay in returning back the contract area to the department will adversely affect non plantation portion in the year 2014-15 which will affect to the very nature of the area and causes revenue loss to the Government. It is respectfully submitted that I have made earnest efforts to comply with the conditions in the agreement and even admittedly the major portion of the work has been already been completed in fact the third respondent himself has forwarded a report to the Govt. taking out of the situation and fully accepting the result of the petitioner and requested the Govt. to grant two months time for completing the work. True copies of the reports of the third respondent dated 19.3.2014 forwarded to the Govt. obtained under R.T.I. Act is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P11 and P12. The letter forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent is not mentioned anywhere in the statement. There is no justification for the same. It is respectfully submitted that in light of Exts.P11 and P12 the writ petition deserves to be allowed.”
4. Heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. This court passed an order dated 2.5.2014 in this W.P. (C), which reads as follows:
“In view of Ext.P11 and P12 reports, there would be an interim order to the respondents to grant extension of time to the petitioner by a further period of one month.”
6. In Ext.Nos.P11 and P12, the competent officer of the Forest department has recommended to the third respondent Divisional Forest Officer that though the statement of the petitioner based on unfavourable climatic conditions is not fully correct, it is true that due to labour disputes, he had to face obstructions in removing timber pieces etc. and that considering that the next season is commencing, the petitioner may be granted further extension of time by two months.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondents shall grant extension of time to the petitioner for a further period of one month as already directed in this court's order dated 2.5.2014 passed in this W.P.(C) referred to above.
W.P.(Civil), accordingly, stands finally disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.7549 of 2014 As this case is similar to W.P.(C) No.7521 of 2014, it is ordered that the direction issued in the judgment dated 2.5.2014 in W.P.(C) No.7521 of 2014, will govern this case as well. In this case also, by Ext.P9, the competent officer of the Forest Department has requested to the third respondent Divisional Forest Officer that the petitioner herein may be granted further extension of time as per agreement by two months, in view of the direction as stated herein above. In this case also, this court has passed an order dated 2.5.2014, which reads as follows:
“In view of Ext.P9 report, there would be an interim order to the respondents to grant extension of time by one month.”
Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondents shall grant extension of time to the petitioner for a further period of one month as already directed in this court's order dated 2.5.2014 passed in this W.P.(C) referred to above.
W.P.(Civil), accordingly, stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, (JUDGE) dl/