ORDER
1. Technically what the petitioner impugns is a recovery certificate issued by the Tahsildar Karvi, Banda. This recovery certificate has been issued under Form-68 in the context of Rule 236 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. It is in effect a Criterion requiring the petilioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,21,245.50 p. failing which, by law, he would stand arrested until the demand under the certificate is satisfied not excluding other distress action by attachment of his property.
2. But the cause of action did not see its origin in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner made a bid in a public auction for collection of 'Tendu' leaves. The auction was held on 14-4-1985. The modalities of the auction were to be made in pursuance of the terms and conditions given in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 5-1-1985. On the bid being accepted, whatever be the amount, the terms and conditions as notified in the Gazette obliged the petitioner to execute an agreement within a period stipulated in clause 16(ku). The petitioner alleges that the respondent orginally arrayed were not fair in their intentions and changed the stipulated period provided in Clause 16(ka) from fifteen days to seven days and, thus, during the subsistency of the notification, the terms and conditions were changed. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court of being available to honour the contract of which he had made the highest bid and that he gave his letter dated 16-5-1985 to the Divisional Forest Officer, South Region, Panna, Annexure-7 to thewrit petition.
3. Taking the period to respond on the obligation to offer an agreement in term of the Gazette notification, the petitioner alleges that the period was reduced, thus, circumstance's were created that the petitioner was not coming forward to execute the agreement within the period so indicated in the notice aha the respondent set about to re-auction the matter. The re-auction fixed a price lesser than the amount which the petitioner had offered. This difference is being realised from the petitioner. The petitioners says that he is not responsible nor obliged to make up the loss as he has no part in changing the terms and the conditions and the error of the respondent or the illegality whatever it might be is not of the petitioners making.
4. Noticing the controversy on record, the Court cannot render a relief in this matter as when the petition had been originally submitted three respondents had been arrayed as party respondents. These were respondent No. 3, Conservator of Forest, Circle Revva respondent No. 4 Divisional Forest Officer, South, Parma, District Panna (M.P.) and respondent No. 5 M/s Harnam Das Prem Chand Jain, Satana (M.P.). These respotu dents were deleted by learned counsel for the petitioners and this is recorded by an order of the Division Bench dated 5-3-1987. In the circum-stances, these respondents are without notice of the petition formally, though a counter-affidavit on behalf of two of them i.e. respondent No. 3 and 4 has been filed. No notice has gone to respondent No. 5, M/s Harnam Das Prem Chand Jain, Satna and in the circumstances there is no counter affidavit on his behalf.
5. The main issue in the writ petition arises on who may have caused the breach to the contract which was to be settled with the petitioner. Whether this breach was occasioned at the instance of the petitioner or the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In reference to approaching a court of law on an auction of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petition could have been filed in that State only. This Court is of the opinion that regard being had to the circumstances that the cause has wholly arisen within the State of Madhya Pradesh as to the genesis of the controversy, it may not be appropriate to render a decision on this writ petition. The question, who suffered loss or damage within the meaning of Chapter VI of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 will be answered when these controversies are debated at the appropriate forum.
6. In the circumstances the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the appropriate Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh but within thirty days from today for which period the ad-interim order of 5-3-1987 shall remain in operation. Oth-erwise, after the expiry of this period the matter will be treated as if there is no ad-interim protection to the petitioner.
7. One thing the petitioner will ensure that should he approach any Court in Madhya Pradesh complete record, as has been filed before Allahabad High Court, will be laid before that Court also.
8. With the aforesaid observations the petition is consigned to the record as not maintainable.
9. Order accordingly.