Judgment:
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the Annexure-XVII order dated 21.12.2009, passed by the Govt. of Mizoram in the Environment and Forest Department under the signature of the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, by which the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the settlement period which had expired on 30.11.2009, was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the Annexure-XV NIT dated 13.11.2009 by which bids had been invited for operation of various Bamboo Mahals for the settlement period 2009-2010, which included the Bamboo Mahal with which the present proceeding is concerned.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was settled with Langkaih Bamboo Mahal for the year 2008-2009 for the working period from 1/12/2008 to 30/11/2009 at the value of Rs. 25,00,000/- for extraction of bamboos not exceeding 30,00,000 Nos. from the Mahal area.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that since due to the circumstances mentioned in the writ petition, he could not extract the stipulated quantity of bamboos and accordingly he is entitled to get extension of the Mahal period in terms of Rule 20(3) of the Mizoram Sales of Forest Produce Mahal Rules, 2002.
4. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filling WP(C) 100/2009 with the prayer for extension of the Mahal period which was disposed off by order dated 23.10.2009, with the direction to consider the prayer of the petitioner.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner was considered and rejected by order dated 12.11.2009, wherein it was stated that the grounds urged by the petitioner in support of his prayer for extension of the operation period beyond 30.11.2009 was un-reasonable, untenable, inconsistent and not sound.
6. After the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2009, the respondents issued the impugned NIT dated 13.11.2009 in respect of the bamboo Mahal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filling WP(C) 5629/2009. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that in between the petitioner had filed another writ petition being WP(C) 110/2009, which was also disposed of directing to consider the representation which was submitted by the petitioner within 2 (two) weeks. The said representation having been disposed of by the impugned order, the petitioner has now filed the instant writ petition.
7. So far as the writ petition being WP(C) 5629/2009 is concerned, the same was disposed of by order dated 17.12.2009, in which the earlier writ petition being WP(C) 110/2009 was also mentioned. By the said order, the respondent authorities were granted the liberty to proceed with the impugned NIT but was restrained from finalizing the same without disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner on 2.12.2009.
8. It is in the aforesaid background, the Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Mizoram has passed the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for extension.
9. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Sarma, leaned counsel representing the respondent No.7. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned State Counsel representing the State respondents.
10. While Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the Mahal period ought to have been considered in view of the fact that the petitioner could not operate the Mahal to the full quantity due to the climatic condition and the road condition, Mr. Sarma, learned State Counsel submitted that the authority having considered the grievance of the petitioner as reflected in the impugned order, writ Court will not sit on appeal over the finding of facts recorded in the said order.
He has also submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 22(3) of the aforesaid rules of 2002, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that the extension must be granted in his favour. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 submitted that the Mahal period of the petitioner having expired on 30.11.2009, there is no question of granting any further extension. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in (1985) 2 GLT 38 (Shri Jagannath Urang v. The State of Assam & Others). He also submitted that the petitioner must not be allowed to stall the NIT proceeding with repeated approach to this Court.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the leaned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. Annexure-XI is the representation dated 12.8.2009, which the petitioner had submitted to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Mizoram, before expiry of the Mahal period w.e.f. 30.11.2009. In the said representation, ground assigned was that the petitioner could not extract the bamboos to the fullest quantity due to excessive rain in the month of April, 2009 and that the road between Kanhmun to Karimganj via Rangamati had been washed away, making it practically impossible for plying of small and heavy vehicles. Another ground urged in the representation was that the petitioner could not also utilize the alternative mode of transportation of bamboos i.e. by river due to the ongoing draught situation. Thus, in the representation, the petitioner had taken the ground of excessive rain and at the same time the ground of draught like situation.
12. The successive writ petitions filed by the petitioner to stall the NIT proceeding in question were all disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, pursuant to which the Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Mizoram has passed the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure-XVII). In the order, the authority has considered all the aspects of the matter including the provisions of Rule 22(3) of the aforesaid rules of 2002, which provides that in regard to stipulated quota of Mahal materials, if any quantity remains un-extracted within the Mahal period, shall automatically belong to the Government after expiry of the advertised Mahal period and that no claim of Mahaldar shall be entertained. The Rules further provides that the extension period even if granted, shall normally be for a period of 3 (three) months and only in exceptional circumstances, the same can be extended.
13. The impugned order also refers to Clause 17(xi) of the terms and conditions of Sale of Forest Produce Mahals by tenders which makes it mandatory for the Mahaldar for transportation of Forest produce from Mahal area including construction of approach road for which no cost or responsibility will be borne by the Government and the said terms and conditions were accepted by the petitioner without any reservation. Further Clause-4 of the agreement also provide for extension of period of Mahal shall be considered only in exceptional cases and shall be in the discretion of the Government and any extension of operation period beyond 3 (three) months from the date of issue of order should only be granted only on payment of 15% of total purchase price of the Mahal, which implied that it was the absolute discretion of the Government, which would be exercised only in a very exceptional cases.
14. In the impugned order, it has also been recorded that the petitioner had never intimated about the purported road damaged due to excessive rain during April, 2009 to the Government before he had applied for extension of the working period by his representation dated 12.8.2009. According to the report furnished by the Sectional officer, PWD, it has been stated that the said authority was not competent to make the statement reflected in the particular report, inasmuch as, he had no authority to make the statement without the approval of the appropriate authority in the PWD. It has also been stated that in 2009 the State of Mizoram experienced scarcity of rain.
15. The representations submitted by the petitioner having been exhaustively dealt with in the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 coupled with the fact that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that extension must be granted to him as per the provisions of Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 2002, I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit on appeal over the finding of fact in the impugned order and cannot also direct further extension of the Mahal period w.e.f. 1.12.2009.
16.In Jagannath Urang (supra), the Division Bench of this Court interpreting the term extension has held that extension can be granted only in respect of an existing thing and not otherwise. The Mahal period expired w.e.f. 30.11.2009 and thus the agreement by and between the parties also stood expired on 30.11.2009. there after, there is no question of granting any extension of the Mahal period to the petitioner.
17. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Interim order dated 5.1.2010 operating in this proceeding, stands vacated. The respondents shall now go ahead with the tender process towards settlement of the Mahal in question.
18. There is no order as to costs.