----------------------- This writ petition was filed in the year 2013 in relation to an auction held on 21.5.2013. Pursuant to the auction, eight lots of fire woods was auctioned by the petitioner and auction was confirmed by the petitioner. The petitioner had to remit 35% of the total auction amount on the date of auction itself. The petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- on 21.05.2013 as evidenced by Ext.P2 chalan. The petitioner was given time to pay the balance amount up to 25.7.2013. It seems that a portion of the amount was paid on 25.10.2013. There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner has not paid the entire amount. The only dispute is with respect to the delay in making the payment. One of the tender condition as per in R1 (b) is that the petitioner shall remit the balance amount within the time indicated in the notice. The petitioner submits that he had paid the entire value of fire wood within the time. There was some confusion regarding the payment Value Added Tax, Forest Development Tax and Income Tax.
W.P.(C).No.27906 of 2014
2
Therefore, the petitioner could not pay the entire amount in time and after clearing the doubts he paid the balance amount.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Forest Department. It is stated that the petitioner was failed to comply with the terms and conditions in the tender and therefore the petitioner cannot claim confirmation of the sale in his favour.
3. As noted above, the petitioner has paid the entire value of fire wood within the time and the delay is only 5 days. This matter has been pending from 2013. The firewood auctioned by the petitioner is lying in the Department. Considering the public interest, I am of the view that the petitioner shall be permitted to release of the firewood within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Though there is no justification for the petitioner in making payment after the expiry date, considering the issue of public interest this writ petition is allowed even though petitioners was at fault, and the fault is very negligible.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/