APHC010849562017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the seventh day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.34393 of Between: Swarnandhra Handicrafts Society and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Forests (A.P 2. The Advocate General (A.P.) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the seventh day of October, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.34393 of 2017 Swarnandhra Handicrafts Society State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Vedula Srinivas espondents: for Forests (A.P.) The Advocate General (A.P.) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the seventh day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and to release fresh stock of red sander chips of 103 M.Ts. to the petitioner in pursuance of sale confirmed through G.O.Rt.No.97, dated 26.02.2013, on receiving balance 3/4th amount of sale consideration and pass such other order as deemed fit. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a. The petitioner is a registered society and engaged in making items of handicrafts through artisans and exporting them out of India. The respondent No.1 called for sealed tenders for sale of undressed red sanders material of chips in the year 2011. The sale was conducted on 10.03.2011. The petitioner was successful bidder to purchase 103 M.Ts. of red sander material @ Rs.29,600/- per metric ton. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.97, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 26.02.2013, confirming the sale in favour of the petitioner and authorised the Chief Conservator of Forests, W.L.M. Circle, to dispose of the material in favour of the petitioner. b. On 08.04.2013, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No.3 to pay total amount of Rs.38,47,033/- which includes the cost of material, sales tax, security deposit and income tax. On 07.05.2013, the petitioner was asked to pay 1/4th of the total amount by 18.05.2013. The petitioner paid Rs.7,55,950/- (1/4th of the amount) towards the cost of the material by D.D.No.227569, dated 21.05.2013, drawn on Union Bank of India, A.S.Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. Vide letter, dated 26.05.2013, the respondent No.3 requested the petitioner to pay the 3 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 balance 3/4th amount also as per the terms of the tender. On 14.06.2013, the respondent No.3 again sought the petitioner to get necessary permission from the respondent No.2 to release 103 M.Ts. of red sander chips by paying the balance amount. The petitioner required licence from the forest department to store red sanders in its godown. The petitioner applied to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nalgonda to issue licence under the A.P. Red Sanders Wood Possession Rules, 1989. Unless the licence is received, the petitioner cannot lift the stock by paying the balance amount. The licence was issued on 11.09.2013. It was renewed thereafter every year. The licence is in force to store the red sanders in its storage point at Toopranpet, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhongir District (formerly Nalgonda District). There was a delay of about two years in confirming the sale after auction was held in 2011. The red sanders were kept in open area by the authorities. It resulted in deterioration of the material due to rains. This fact is evident from the letter, dated 12.06.2013, of the respondent No.3. The petitioner has been requesting the respondents to allot new stock of red sander chips as the stock of 2011 spoiled being exposed to weather. Without considering the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has been addressing letters to the respondents Nos.2 & 4 to cancel the same and forfeit the amount already paid by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay full amount of consideration and lift the material. The petitioner submitted representations, dated 14.06.2016 and 14.12.2016 to the authorities to issue fresh stock of red sander chips. The representations are unanswered by the authorities. On 27.12.2016, the respondent No.3 again proposed to the respondent No.4 to recommend to the respondent No.2 to cancel the sale and forfeit the amount. So far, no order has been passed cancelling the sale and forfeiting the amount. It is not fair for the respondents not to consider 4 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 the request of the petitioner as there was inordinate delay of two years in confirming the sale and the petitioner cannot be found fault for not paying the balance amount. There is a huge stock of more than 500 M.Ts. of red sander chips available with the respondents. The respondents are acting in an unreasonable manner to the prejudice of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3. The respondent No.3 filed counter admitting the tender notification, acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner, issuance of G.O.Rt.No.97, dated 26.02.2013, payment of 1/4th amount by the petitioner through demand draft and the exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the authorities, however, prayed to dismiss the petition alleging that the petitioner had no licence to store the red sander chips even after issuance of G.O.Rt.No.97, dated 26.02.2013, till the licence was granted on 11.09.2013 and therefore, there cannot be any blame on the respondents for the delay and further denying the alleged decay of the red sander chips and further stating that the petitioner was at fault for not paying the balance amount and lift the material though the material was kept in new bags and placed in godown. It is further stated that as per the terms of the tender, if the balance amount is not paid within time, i.e., sixty (60) days from the date of confirmation of sale, all the produce unremoved / unlifted stock shall be liable to be confiscated to the State. It is also mentioned that the respondent No.3 submitted a detailed report to the Chief Conservator of Forests, W.L.M. Circle, Tirupati, and requested for appropriate instructions vide letter reference No.961/2010/S4, dated 18.01.2014, and accordingly, the Conservator of Forests, submitted the same to the respondent No.2 requesting further necessary instructions, 5 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 vide letter reference No.2175/2010/M5, dated 04.02.2014. According to the respondents, the petitioner was given a detailed reply, vide letter reference No.961/2010/S4, dated 30.06.2016 and 27.12.2016 to the representations made by the petitioner on 14.06.2016 and 14.12.2016. 4. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, appearing through video conferencing, assisted by Ms. Priyanvitha, learned counsel, the learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General and Ms. B. Sravani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to fresh stock of red sander chips in view of the admitted statement made by the authorities in their letter, dated 14.06.2013, and no further proof is required to establish that the stock proposed to be sold in 2011 got deteriorated as on the date of approval for sale accorded by issuing G.O.Rt.No.97 on 26.02.2013. 6. The learned senior counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is agreeable to purchase the same quantity of red sander chips by paying the current rate provided fresh stock is supplied, but, the petitioner is not agreeable to accept the old stock. 7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to the stock which was put to sale under the subject notification and no fresh stock can be offered as demanded by the petitioner. He further submitted that the statement in the letter, dated 14.06.2013, cannot be treated as a proof of condition of the material since the material does not get destroyed as it has long shelf life and moreover, all the necessary steps were taken to protect it 6 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 from exposure to the sun and rain by lifting the stock in new bags and keeping in godown and intimated to the petitioner also. He further submitted that several efforts were made by the authorities requesting the petitioner to lift the stock by making payment of the balance amount, however, the petitioner was adament in accepting the proposal in spite of expiry of the period mentioned in the terms of the agreement. He further submitted that as per the rules mentioned in the counter, the petitioner is not entitled to even for refund of the amount in deposit and the stock is liable to be confiscated. He further submitted that the petitioner is asking not only the fresh stock but also red sander stumps. He further submitted that the petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity given by this Court during the course of hearing to inspect the stock to examine the condition of the material as on date and merely basing on the letter, dated 14.06.2013, the petitioner is still contending that the stock got damaged and refused to lift the stock. Upon instructions, he submitted that the respondent authorities are agreeable to permit the petitioner to lift the stock on payment of the balance amount along with other incidental expenses, yet, the petitioner is not coming forward to grab the opportunity. 8. This is not a civil suit filed for specific performance of the contract. The petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition. He has to establish that the respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily by violating any law or in derogation of any legal procedures. It is the consistent stand taken by the petitioner that the petitioner shall be given fresh stock of red sander chips. It is pertinent to mention that though the sale confirmation was made in February, 2013, the petitioner deposited 1/4th of the amount in May, 2013 without raising any objection or subjecting the payment against any condition to be fulfilled by the respondent 7 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 authorities. However, the petitioner started asking for supply of fresh stock after obtaining the licence to lift and store the stock. If at all the stock is found unworthy to purchase, nothing prevented the petitioner from refraining from making the payment on the very same basis. Having chosen to make the payment unconditionally, shortly thereafter, the petitioner has started asking to provide new stock for making the payment of the balance amount and lift the stock. 9. As rightly contended by the respondents, the petitioner had no licence even as on the date of making the payment of 1/4th amount of consideration and subsequently thereto, till September, 2013, however, raised finger against the respondent authorities in causing delay in issuing confirmation of the sale. It is at the instance of the petitioner, the material agreed to be sold could not be lifted by the petitioner and not due to any fault of the respondent authorities. There is no other legal or procedural infirmity for non-supply of the stock agreed to be sold to the petitioner. In the absence of any such contention, the petitioner cannot claim the relief in the writ petition. Insofar as the condition of the material is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, except relying on the letter containing a caution note that the material gets destroyed being exposed to light and rain, there is no evidence at all to show that the material, in fact, got destroyed. In fact, the stock was kept in the godown by loading in new bags. An opportunity was also given to the petitioner to personally verify the condition of the stock and report to this Court if there is change in the condition of the material. However, the petitioner has not availed such an opportunity. No other evidence is placed to show that the material got damaged by lapse of time or for any other reason. Under these circumstances, as the petitioner failed to establish any lapse on the part 8 BSB, J W.P.No.34393 of 2017 of the respondents, either in relation to the condition of the material or other legal aspects, the relief claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner against the terms of the contract. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 07-10-2025 RAR