Writ Petition No. 7073 of 1997 · Madrasdated High Court · 2007

WP.No.14418/2000 in WA.No.405 of 2003:This petition presented to this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the 2nd Respondent in its communication dated 23.1.2000in C.No.5804/99/S. Quash the same and consequently forbear the respondentsfrom making any claim or demand from the petitioner for the payment ofSales Tax, demurrage charge and / or penal interest in respect of purchaseof 15 M/ts of Sandal wood made by the petitioner in the auction conductedby the 2nd Respondent on 28.4.1999 and confirmed by the 2nd Respondent byorder dated 16.5.1999 in C.No.5804/99-S.WP.No.7499/2000 in WA.No.412 of 2003:This petition presented to this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the 2nd Respondent culminating in its communicationdated 1.4.2000 in C.No.13402/99-S quash the same and consequently forbearthe respondents from making any claim or demand from the petitioner forthe payment of Sales Tax, demurrage charge and / or penal interest inrespect of purchase of 35 MTs of Sandal wood made by the petitioner in theauction conducted by the 2nd Respondent on 28.4.1999 and confirmed by the2nd Respondent by order dated 20.11.1999 in C.No. C.No.13402/99-S.WP.No.7500 of 2000 in W.A.No.413/2003: This petition presented to this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the 2nd Respondent culminating in its communicationdated as 23.1.2000 in C.No.1136/99-S quash the same and consequentlyforbear the respondents from making any claim or demand from thepetitioner for the payment of Sales Tax, demurrage charges and / or penalinterest in respect of purchase of 57.5 MTS of Sandalwood made by thepetitioner in the auction conducted by the 2nd respondent and confirmedby the 2nd respondent by order dated 2.2.99 in C.No.1136/99-S.WP.No.8359 of 2000 in WA.414/2003: This petition presented to this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the order dated 20.11.99in C.13402/99-S and quash the same with respect to the demand for SalesTax and to direct the respondents to accept the form H filed by thepetitioner after the export is over without insisting for payment of SalesTax and any surcharge thereon in respect of the Sandalwood material soldto the petitioner in the auction conducted by the 2nd respondent in respectof 35 MTS of Sandalwood as confirmed by the 2nd respondent order dated20.11.99 in C.No.13402/99-S https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.No.7073/1997 in WA.No.3513/2004:This petition presented to this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the second respondent culminating in the order dated30.04.1997 in proceeding in the order dated 30.04.1997 in proceedingsC.No.10821/96-S quash the same and direct the respondents to accept theForm H filed by the petitioner. After the export is over withoutinsisting for payment of Sales Tax and surcharge or any other charges orclaims and to issue such further directions as may be deemed appropriatein the circumstances of the case.For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramasamy, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.N.Kribanandan AGP [Taxes] counsel for Appellant in all the Appeal.For Respondents: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior counsel for M/s.Anand Das Gupta counsel for Respondent in WA.No.405/03, 412 to 413/03. Mr.K.S.Natarajan counsel for the respondent in WA.No.3513/04.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered byK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.)Writ Appeal No.405 of 2003 is filed against the order of the learnedsingle Judge dated 25.10.2002 allowing the writ petition No.14418 of 2000which was filed for quashing the proceedings of the District ForestOfficer, Tirupathur, dated 23.01.2000 in C.No.5804/99/S and forbearing therespondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of the Forests, Chennai andthe District Forest Officer, Thirupathur Division from making any claim ordemand from the writ petitioner for payment of sales tax at 8% and penalinterest in respect of purchase of 15 Mts of sandalwood made by thepetitioner in the auction held on 28.04.1999. By that order impugned inthe writ petition, the District Forest Officer, Thirupathur Division hasinformed the writ petitioner that as per the condition No.12(i)(ii)(iii)of the Sandal Wood sales notice in C.No.2860/99S dated 21.03.1999, anamount of Rs.11,36,500/- already paid by the petitioner on 28.04.1999 belapsed to the Government and 15 metric tonnes of sandal wood purchased bythe petitioner on 28.04.1999 in lot Nos.14, 38 and 40C, be resold at thepetitioner's risk in public auction.2. Writ Appeals Nos.412 to 415 of 2003 are filed against the orderdated 25.10.2002 allowing writ petitions Nos.7499, 7500 and 8359 of 2000filed by the respondents herein seeking for the relief of writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the District forest Officer culminating in its communications dated01.04.2000, 23.01.2000 and 20.11.1999 respectively and to quash the sameand consequently forbear the respondents from making any claim or demandfrom the petitioner for payment of sales tax, demurrage charges or penalinterest in respect of purchase of sandal wood made by the petitioner inthe auction conducted and confirmed on 20.11.1999, and 02.02.1999.3. Writ Appeal No.3513 of 2004 was filed against the order dated06.08.2004 allowing writ petition No.7073 of 1997 wherein the respondentherein has sought for the relief of quashing the order dated 30.04.1997 ofthe second appellant by which the second appellant forfeited the amountpaid by the respondent in a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- for the purchase ofsandal wood.4. These cases were directed to be disposed of as a batch by the orderof this Court dated 29.01.2003 as the facts of the case, dispute,arguments for and against are one and the same. Writ appeal No.405 of2003 is taken up as a typical case.For the sake of convenience, theparties are hereinafter referred to in the manner they were referred to inthe writ petition. 5. The writ petitioner (relating to WA.405/2003) was a partnershipfirm engaged in the business of processing and exporting sandal wood. Thepetitioner claimed that it had received a specific export order dated20.12.1998 for sandalwood chips to be exported to HondKong. Thepetitioner had participated in the auction dated 28.04.1999 conducted bythe second respondent, the District Forest Officer as per the auctionnotice dated 21.03.1999. The petitioner was declared as a successfulbidder in respect of 15 metric tonnes of sandal wood for the bid amount ofRs.51,29,000/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way ofearnest money deposit and a further sum of Rs.10,36,500/- representing 20%of the sale amount as required by the sale notice dated 21.03.1999. Thepetitioner claimed that inasmuch as the purchase was made for the purposeof meeting the prior export order, the petitioner was exempted from payingsales tax as per the provisions contained in section 5(3) of the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956. However, by the sale confirmation order dated16.05.1999 which was received by the petitioner on 29.05.1999, thepetitioner was called upon to pay certain amount which included a sum ofRs.4,11,346/- towards sales tax. The second respondent insisted forpayment of the entire amount including the sales tax liability. Notaccepting the demand, the petitioner filed writ petition No.15094 of 1999,which was disposed of by order of this Court dated 14.09.1999 by observingthat the claim of the petitioner that it was entitled for exemption ofsales tax, if it was made for the purpose of export sale and thatparticular quantity was entitled for exemption could be considered by theDistrict Forest Officer on merits and in accordance with law within aperiod of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Eventhough the above said order was passed after hearing theSpecial Government Pleader on 15.09.1999, on the very next day, the secondrespondent called upon the petitioner to settle the amounts within sevendays indicating that on failure, action would be taken to forfeit theamount already deposited. Subsequently, a telegram was also issued bythe second respondent, the District Forest Officer. On receipt of such atelegram, the petitioner gave a reply telegram by which the attention ofthe second respondent was drawn to the order passed by this Court dated14.09.1999 and requested to consider its request regarding exemption ofsales tax as directed by this Court. On 29.09.1999 the second respondentpassed an order directing the petitioner to pay the balace sale amount,penal interest, demurrages, etc., as per the sale condition by referringto the order impugned in writ petition No.15094 of 1999. By that letter,the petitioner was further directed to produce foreign buyer agreementexecuted before the date of sale for availing exemption of payment of 8%of sales tax or to produce bank guarantee for the amount of tax valid foran year. The petitioner was further directed to file an undertakingletter to the effect that the export records should be produced withinthree months and directed to complete the above formalities and lift thesandal wood immediately. 7. On receipt of the above said letter the petitioner immediatelywrote back on 04.10.1999 again referring to the order passed by this Courtstating that the demand of penal interest, demurrage was not justified inas much as the goods were yet to be handed over to it. The DistrictForest Officer gave a reply on 02.11.1999 stating that the request torelease the sandal wood without payment of penal interest and demurragewas not acceptable. Subsequently, the District Forest Officer againwrote a letter directing the petitioner to pay sales tax due, penalinterest and demurrage along with other dues. The petitioner again gave areply reiterating about the order passed by this Court and the fact thatthe petitioner had participated in the auction for meeting the exportorder and the demand of penal interest and demurrage charges wereunustified. The correspondence continued and ultimately on 23.01.2000 anorder was passed forfeiting the amount already paid. That order waschallenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition No.14418 of 2000. 8. Upon hearing the counsel on either side and upon perusing thematerial placed before the Court, the learned single Judge disposed of thewrit petition with certain directions which read as follows :1.The direction regarding forfeiture is quashed.2.The petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee to meet theevenutal liability of sales tax and to keep such bankguarantee alive for one year.3.The petitioner is further required to make payments asindicated in the confirmation letter except the directionregarding payment of sales tax. The bank guarantee andsuch payment should be made within a period of one monthfrom the date of communication of the order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.If the aforesaid conditions are complied with by thepetitioner, the respondents should deliver the goods withina period of one month from the date of furnishing bankguarantee and the other amounts payable by the petitioner.The respondent should not claim any demurrage or penalty.5.The petitioner is required to establish before theconcerned authority that it is not liable to pay sales taxunder section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act withrespect to the sandal wood purchased pursuant to theauction dated 28.04.1999. This should be done within aperiod of five months from today. If the petitioner is notable to establish that it is entitled to the benefit ofexemption sales tax, the respondent may enforce the bankguarantee and realise the amount after the lapse of theaforesaid period of five months. On the other hand, if thepetitioner is able to establish its case that it is notliable to pay the sales tax, the bank guarantee should bereturned to the petitioner." Subject to the above conditions, the writ petition was allowed.9. Aggrived by this order of the learned single Judge, writ appealNo.405 of 2003 is filed by the respondent Department.10. The learned Additional Advocate General, though originallysubmitted before this Court that the issue in these cases is covered bythe decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.826 and 829 of 2001made on 02.05.2006, subsequently, took a different stand and startedarguing that the petitioner participated in the auction accepting theconditions in the sale notice and breached the condition in making thepayment of sales tax. Breach of contract cannot be the subject matter of awrit petition. He further contended that the petitioner not only paidthe Earnest Money Deposit, but also paid 20% of the sale amount asrequired in the auction notice thus having acted upon the sale notice, thepetitioner cannot maintain a writ petition wriggling out from itscontractual obligations. After the confirmation of the sale in favour ofthe petitioner a concluded contract came into existence and the impugnedorder of forfeiture was passed in accordance with the terms of salenotice. As per the condition No.25 of the sale notice, the petitioner hasto pay sales tax as per the rates which are in force along with the firstinstalment of the purchase price. The sale of sandal wood is a local saleand therefore, tax has to be paid as per the Tamil Nadu General Sales TaxAct. As per condition No.9 of the sale notice the petitioner has to pay25% of the sale amount as the first instalment within 15 days from thedate of confirmation and another 25% within 30 days from the date ofreceipt of confirmation order and the balance of 50% less the EarnestMoney Deposit already paid has to be paid within 45 days. If there is anybreach, the respondent is entitled to charge penal interest and if thesandal woods were not removed within the stipulated period, the petitioneris liable to pay demurrage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitionersubmitted that in an identical set of facts, a Division Bench of thisCourt in respect of the petitioner's sister concern, in writ appealsNos.94 to 96 of 2000 considered the issue and granted the relief in favourof the auction purchaser on certain terms and conditions. The learnedsingle Judge has followed the judgment of the Division Bench and recordedthose conditions in his order in the writ petition and as such thecontentions raised by the respondent that there is a concluded contractand a writ petition cannot be maintained has to be rejected. As a matterof fact, the contention of the respondent that sales tax at 8% under theTamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has to be paid by the petitioner and theother contention that the petitioner is liable to pay penal, demurragecharges have to be rejected as the petitioner was ready to comply with thedirections given by the learned single Judge following the judgment of theDivision Bench referred to supra. It was further stated before this Courtthat the Division Bench judgment in writ appeals Nos.94 to 96 of 2000 wastaken to the Supreme Court by the department in Civil Appeal No.826 & 829of 2001. In the meantime, the petitioner and the respondent compliedwith the directions and the Supreme Court taking note of the fact that theDepartment itself found that the purchase was made pursuant to the priorforeign order, granted the relief to the auction purchaser and acceptedthe view taken by this Court. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.12. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materialsavailable on record. 13. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the successful bidderand paid the Earnest Money Deposit and 20% of the bid amount as requiredby the sale notice. The one and the only dispute is that whether thepetitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax underSection 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is the claim of thepetitioner that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under section 5(3)of the Central Sales Tax Act as the purchase was made for export inpursuance of a prior export order. It is contended on behalf of therespondent State that the successful bidder has to pay sales tax at 8%under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as per the terms of the salenotice. The condition on which reliance has been placed by the ForestDepartment for demanding the sales tax at 8% is to the following effect :"25. The purchaser should pay the Forest Department inone lumpsum a Sales Tax/Income Tax at the rates in force atthe time of confirmation of the sale on the full purchaseamount along with the first instalment of the purchaseprice."There is no dispute of payment of income tax in this case. The dispute isregarding the liability of the purchaser to pay sales tax. As per theconditions, sales tax at the rate in force at the time of confirmation ofsale on the full purchase amount has to be made. The condition statedabove cannot be regarded as contended by the Forest Department that thesales tax at 8% under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has to be paid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sales tax has to be paid at the rate in force at the time of confirmationof sale. But the question whether the petitioner is liable to pay salestax or exempted in view of its contention that the purchase was coveredunder section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is a question of fact andhas to be proved with evidence, we are of the view that the issuerequires consideration by the appropriate authority i.e., the CommercialTaxes Department at the time of making assessment over the ForestDepartment. The respondent Forest Department cannot resolve the issue asto the entitlement of exemption or otherwise of the petitioner undersection 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act.14. Having regard to the nature of the dispute in collection of salestax in the auction being conducted by the Forest Department, the SpecialCommissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a letterdated 16.09.1998 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, which hasbeen extracted in paragraph 4 of the order of the learned single Judge andfor the sake of convenience the same is reproduced here :"... In respect of the claim of exemption under section 5(3) thatclaim has to be made by the Forest Department in the A 10 returnsfiled enclosing documentary evidence. As a precaution, the ForestDepartment may accept bank guarantee at the time of auction salefrom the successful bidders who claim that the purchase was forthe purpose of fulfilling prior agreement from the foreign buyer.A time limit of three months may be fixed by the Forest Departmentto get documentary evidence from the buyer that the goods wereactually exported along with Form 'H'. When such Form 'H' andother documents were presented to the assessing officer by theForest Department and are found to be in order by the assessingofficer, exemption can be granted on such transactions and theForest Department may return the bank guarantee. Wherever thereis no proof to claim the exemption provided under section 5(3) ofthe Central Sales Tax Act, the Forest Department may encash theBank guarantee and remit the amount to the Commercial TaxDepartment ......"15. When such a clear guidance and guidelines have been given by theCommercial Taxes Department, there is no force in the contention of therespondent that the petitioner has to pay sales tax at 8% as per the TamilNadu General Sales Tax Act along with first instalment of bid amount. TheDivision Bench by its order dated 26.04.2000 made in W.As.94 to 96 of 2000considered an identical claim made by the sister concern of thepetitioner, which has been defended on behalf of the Forest Department bycontending that the purchaser has not established that the purchase ofsandal wood was for export sale and it was an auction in general. As percondition No.27 of the sale notice, the purchaser should pay the intra-State sales tax on the date of confirmation of sale, The purchaser thereinwas not having any valid licence to export goods so as to enable it toclaim the benefit under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act on thedate of sale and it was not established that the sale was for the purposeof export based on earlier order obtained from the foreign buyers. TheDivision Bench, after referring to the section 5(3) of the Act, considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ its applicability by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in thecase of Mohd. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa, 36 STC 136 and the decisionin the case of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. vs. Coffee Board, Bangalore AIR1980 SC 1468, held that if the petitioner was able to establish that itpurchased the goods pursuant to an agreement or order under which thegoods were to be exported in compliance with such an agreement or order,it was entitled to the benefit under section 5(3) and it need not paysales tax. The other contention of the Forest Department that at the timeof conclusion of sale, the purchaser has not produced any document toestablish the existence of prior contract of foreign buyer was rejected byobserving that merely because the appellant had not produced certaindocuments at the time of completion of sale, it would not change thecharacter of sale if really such a sale was in the course of export andalso pointed out that there was no such condition of establishingexistence of such an agreement in the auction notice. Ultimately theDivision Bench concluded that as the purchaser has come forward with theplea that the purchase of sandal wood by it in the public auction was inpursuance of an agreement with the foreign buyers, the objection raised bythe Department that the purchaser has not produced any document at thetime of conclusion of sale and so they could not claim any benefit undersection 5(3) of the said Act, in view of the condition No.27 of the salenotice, could not be countenanced. Having held so, the Division Benchalso observed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court inthe judgments referred to supra, the purchaser was entitled to the benefitunder section 5(3) of the Act. The other contention raised that thepurchaser has accepted the terms and conditions and participated in theauction and purchased sandal wood cannot thereafter wriggle out anddispute the terms under Article 226 of the Constitution has been answeredin para 16 of the judgment which was to the effect that it was not indispute that if the purchaser satisfied the requirement of section 5(3) ofthe Act he was entitled to the benefit under the said provision. Thecontract could not stand in the way of the purchaser in getting thestaturoty benefit. No contract tends to circumwent the benefit givenunder the law. The Bench further observed that no contract would beenforced which would be contrary to the general policy of the law or wasdetrimental to the interest of the public. The said observations apply tothe present case in all fours.16. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the learned singleJudge which is impugned in the writ appeal requires no interference. 17. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that thesandal woods which are the subject matter of the first writ appeal areavailable with the respondent and in respect of other cases, the sandalwood were already sold and are not available for delivery.18. This contention also cannot be countenanced for the reason thatafter obtaining the orders from this Court in writ petition, thepetitioner has taken out 24 demand drafts – 14 demand drafts each for asum of Rs.9,00,000/-, bearing Nos.993328 to 993330, 993332 to 993340;993361 and 993362; one demand draft for a sum of Rs.5,92,500/- bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.993341, one demand draft for Rs.1,92,500/- bearing No.993327; onedemand draft for Rs.7,87,900/- bearing No.993331; one demand draft forRs.2,00,000/- bearing No.993363 – all drawn in Denak Bank,Nungambakkam; 3 demand drafts each for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- , bearingNos.501139 to 501140 and one demand draft for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-bearing No.501141 drawn in State Bank of Bikoner & Jaipur, Mylaporebranch; one demand draft for Rs.1,50,00,000/- bearing No.062548 drawn inState Bank of India, Commercial Branch; one demand draft for Rs.2,00,000/-bearing No.111672 drawn in State Bank of India, Eluru Branch – totallingto a sum of Rs.3,24,72,900/- and handed over to the respondent. Thoughthe respondent originally accepted the same, subsequently returned them onthe premise that they have filed writ appeals against the orders.Subsequently, the respondent has brought 35 metric tonnes of Jajpokal Iclass, 32 metric tonnes of Milwa Chilta and 0.5 metric tonnes of bagardadfor public auction under sale notices dated 26.11.2002 and 18.12.2002.The petitioner fearing that the sandal wood which are the subject matterof the writ petitions would also be sold by the respondent, filed writpetitions Nos.2391 to 2393 of 2003 for issuance of writ of certiorarifiedmandamus to call for the records relating to the sale notices and quashthe same and forbearing the respondent from bringing the sandal wood forauction without effecting delivery to the petitioner of the quantity ofthe goods for which the petitioner has become successful bidder. In thosewrit petitions, originally interim orders were granted in favour of thepetitioner. The respondent department filed a counter and an applicationto vacate the interim order. In that affidavit, in paragraph 5, therespondent has in unequivocal terms stated as follows :"...In any event, if ultimately the writ petitioner succeedsin the appeal, then it is the duty of the State to effect deliveryof sandal wood for which purpose, there is sandalwood and theapprehension that sandalwood will be vanished is untenable. Istate that if ultimately, it is found that the petitioner isentitled to delivery of sandalwood it will be definitely deliveredto him."The Division Bench by its order dated 27.03.2003 accepting the undertakingand recording the above extracted portion of the affidavit, vacated theinterim order. 19. Thus, in a solemn affidavit the respondent having accepted andagreed to deliver the goods if the petitioner succeeded in the appeal, itis not open to them to contend that the goods are not available fordelivery. Here again, we are of the view that the stand of therespondents cannot be appreciated. The learned single Judge has passedthe order following the Division Bench judgment in which all the pointswhich have been taken in the writ petition have been raised, met andrejected against the respondents. The writ petitioner has all along beenfighting before this Court by filing writ petition after writ petitionclaiming the statutory benefit, that too, relying on the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court. In addition to that, the Commercial TaxesDepartment has also given clear guidelines to accept the bank guaranteewhenever successful bidder claimed benefit under section 5(3) to release https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the goods by its order dated 16.09.1998. But inspite of all theseprecedent and guidelines, the respondents were not inclined to accept thebank guarantee to deliver the goods to the petitioner, but ventured infiling appeals after appeals. Hence, the equity is in favour of the writpetitioner. Further, it is not as if the Forest Department is not havingany sandal wood for disposal. Periodically they are auctioning sandalwood in several metric tonnes. That is the reason the District ForestOfficer has sworn the solemn affidavit and assured that the goods wouldbe delivered on the petitioner succeeding in the appeals. Hence, thecontention of the Additional Advocate General that the goods are notavailable for delivery cannot be accepted. The State has to deliver thegoods from its stock as undertaken by the District Forest Officer in thesolemn affidavit dated 10.03.2003 filed before this Court. 20. In respect of demand of penalty and demurrage, the clausecontaining the demurrage proceeds that on the purchasers presentingchallan as proof that 50 % of sale value having been paid, the fact ofremittance would be verified with the bank by asking for the triplicatecopy of the challan or bank advice. On the receipt of which a proportionof the wood purchased will be weighed in his or in the agent's presenceand the quantity handed over to him. If, however, proof is produced thatthe entire sale value has been paid, the whole quantity of sandalwoodpurchased will be weighed and handed over after due verification of thefactum of remittance as above. The purchaser must take delivery or removethe whole of the goods sold to him within 75 days from the date of receiptof confirmation order. If he fails to take delivery of woods after allthe amounts due on such wood are paid within the voidah, the wood would bekept in double lock or single lock as the case may be until such time asagreed to take delivery thereof and he shall be liable to pay a demurrageRs.30/- per tonne per day for each day the wood so kept in double lock orsingle lock beyond 75 days. 21. On the reading of the above condition it is clear that on paymentof the entire amount by the successful bidder and on handing over of thegoods to the purchaser, if the purchaser failed to take delivery withinthe voidah date, the woods would have to be kept in double or single lockas the case may be untill such time as agreed to take delivery thereof andthe purchaser shall be liable to pay a demurrage Rs.30/- per tonne per dayfor each day the wood kept in double or single lock beyond 75 days fromthe date of confirmation. 22. In this case, except the payment of earnest money deposit and 20%of the bid amount, the other amounts are yet to be paid and are indispute. Even the other amounts paid pursuant to the direction issued bythis Court by way of demand drafts have been returned to the petitioner.The goods were neither handed over to the petitioner nor kept in double orsingle lock by the respondents. Hence, there is no question of demurrage.So is the demand made for penalty also not tenable. This issue has alsobeen considered by the Division Bench of this Court which we have referredto above and confirmed by the apex Court in Civil Appeals No.826 and 829of 2001 decided on 02.05.2006 wherein it was held as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Accordingly, the High Court directed the appellant torelease the goods, if not already done so, without payment ofany demurrage charges or penalty. The respondent was notresponsible for the delay, the delay, if any, was caused due tothe unreasonable stand taken by the appellant. We agree with the view taken by the High Court that therespondent could not be fastened with the liability to pay thedemurrage charges or penalty, as the respondent was notresponsible for the delay. Delay, if any, was caused by theappellant in not releasing the goods in spite of the specificdirections issued by the High Court to that effect."23. In this case, the High Court directed the respondent to releasethe goods on obtaining the bank guarantee for the disputed amount, butinspite of the bank guarantee being furnished, the goods were not releasedand as a matter of fact, a contempt petition has also been filed againstthe respondent. Hence, on this point also, we are of the view that therespondent is not legally entitled to claim penal charges and demurragecharges.24. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeals are dismissedconfirming the order made in the respective writ petitions. Theconditions imposed by the learned single Judge shall be followed by eitherof the parties. The time for furnishing bank guarantee and payment asdirected in condition No.3 in the impugned order stands extended by onemonth from the date of communication of this order. No costs. Theconnected miscellaneous petitions are consequently dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,Environment and Forest Department,Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. The District Forest Officer,Tiruppattur division, Tiruppatur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Principal Chief conservator of Forests, Panagal Buildings,Saidapet, Chennai 15.4. The District Forest Officer,Salem Division, Salem 7.+ 1 CC To Spl. Government Pleader [Forest] SR Nos.64335+ 3 Ccs to Mr.Anand Das Gupta Advocate SR Nos.64752, 64754 and 64755+ 1 CC To Mr.K.S.Natarajan, Advocate SR NO.64753WAs Nos.405, 412 to 414 of 2003and 3513 of 2004akr[co]gp/31.10.