K. Kannan v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/291/2021 K. Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others ... Respondents Mrs. S. Gloria Mary ... for the petitioner Mr.Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents April 22, 2022 [GNC] Item No.11 There is substance in the prayers made in this writ petition. The writ petition has been filed, challenging the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer, Little Andaman dated August 10, 2021 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the harvesting period by a few months was rejected. The petitioner was a successful bidder in respect of a tender notified on June 30, 2020. The said tender was in respect of harvesting ripened coconuts from the standing trees, at Little Andaman.
The tender conditions required that a total amount of Rs.18,99,555/- should be deposited in four equal monthly instalments for harvesting of the coconuts from 1603 trees. The successful tenderer, was required to submit the list of workers engaged for the harvesting at the plantations. Copies of their identity cards and photographs were to be submitted to the department.
Records reveal that the petitioner accordingly entered into an agreement, being the successful bidder. The harvesting of the
fruits had commenced through the workers and even the last instalment of Rs.4,74,889/- was deposited on May 21, 2021. Unfortunately, due to the continuous orders imposing lockdown issued by the District Magistrate of Little Andaman, the work could not be completed within the contractual period which ended in August. 2021.
The petitioner prior to expiry of the term of the contract, applied before the Divisional Forest Officer, Little Andaman for an extension of time to complete the harvesting work. Admittedly, the entire amount as was required to be deposited including the last instalment was deposited on the presumption and understanding that the petitioner would be able to complete the harvesting within the stipulated period in the contract. When the lockdown was continued and extended continuously by the District Magistrate, the petitioner could not mobilize the workers to do the harvesting work and as such the work could not be completed. The prayer for such extension was rejected. Hence, the writ petition.
The order impugned before this Court, has been challenged on the following grounds:
(a) That the authority did not state the reasons as to why the extension could not be granted to the petitioner, especially because the petitioner had paid the entire amount due and payable under the contract.
(b) That major portion of the harvesting of the ripened fruits had been completed and by an extension of two more months, the terms and conditions of the contract
would be fulfilled and the ripened fruits from all the 1603 standing coconut trees, would be harvested. (c) The intervening orders of the District Magistrate imposing lockdown continuously on and from May 22, 2021 upto August 17, 2021 was not in dispute, but the authority failed to take into consideration such adverse conditons.
Mr.Ramendu Agarwal, the learned Advocate appearing for the Administration submits that the clauses in the contact did not permit extension of time. That the harvesting of the remaining trees was being managed, in-house. The authority did not have any power to grant extension to the petitioner. Heard the parties. The court finds that the order impugned is not reasoned. The circumstances under which the petitioner had prayed for extension of time, has not been considered. The fact that the District Magistrate of Little Andaman had been imposing lockdowns on and from May 22, 2021 continuously and such lockdowns were extended from time to time even on August 17, 2021, has not been taken into consideration. The authority under such situation could have taken a policy decision to consider the prayer of the petitioner.
The compelling circumstances under which the harvesting could not be completed due to non-availability of the workers during the lockdown period and also because all kinds of outdoor activity had been barred by the Administration, was totally ignored. Such embargo should have been taken into consideration and thereafter necessary orders should have been passed on the application of the petitioner.
Andaman could not have brushed aside the hardship under which the petitioner operated and could not complete the work. It is a matter of record that the Apex Court had extended the period of limitation in filing cases before all courts and tribunal.
Drawing an analogy from the said principle, in the opinion of the court, the Divisional Forest Officer could have taken a more sympathetic view and as a policy could have decided to extend the time as prayed for by the petitioner by a month or two, under the special circumstances narrated above. The order impugned dated August 10, 2021 is set aside. It is not in dispute that the entire amount of Rs.18,99,555/- has been deposited with the authority. The money paid includes the royalty in respect of the remaining harvesting work payable by the successful bidder in respect of the entire harvesting.
However, the petitioner could not make good the losses suffered after having deposited the money because of such decision of the authority. It is not in dispute that during the lockdown period unemployment, lack of opportunity and sufferings of the people have gone up by leaps and bounds and the authority who is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, ought to have risen to this occasion.
The order impugned is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Forest Officer, Little Andaman for a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner, especially because it is on record that no third party interest with regard to the harvesting of the remaining fruits/trees has been created so far.
A reasoned decision shall be taken upon hearing the petitioner and thereafter communicated to the petitioner. The decision shall be in the light of the observations made by this court hereinabove. The entire exercise shall be completed within two weeks from date.
With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Parties are directed to act on the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)