Ch.Chittaiah vs. The State State Of Andhra Pradesh,Of Ap

Held

The Court acknowledged that the facts stated by the petitioners were not denied by the respondents. It was not disputed that the petitioners had deposited significant amounts and, due to the pandemic, had not collected any cashew usufruct, leading to their inability to pay the remaining amounts. The Court noted that the auction period for the notification dated November 12, 2020, had already concluded, and any consideration for the petitioners would arise for the next season, starting March 2021. The Court disposed of all writ petitions by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners' request for collecting cashew usufruct for the period of March 2021 to June 2022, accepting the amounts already with the authorities. This direction was applicable only to the pending areas pursuant to these writ petitions. The Court made no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioners were successful bidders in auctions conducted by the A.P. Forest Development Corporation for the right to collect cashew usufruct. They paid initial amounts, security deposits, and GST. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown from March 23, 2020, they were unable to collect cashew usufruct and consequently could not pay the remaining balance amounts. They represented to the authorities requesting an extension or cancellation of the auction with a refund. However, the respondents cancelled the sales, forfeited the amounts paid, and initiated further action, including resale or departmental collection at the risk of the bidders. The petitioners challenged these proceedings. A subsequent auction notice dated November 12, 2020, for some of the same estates was also challenged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of auction sales and forfeiture of amounts paid by the petitioners, due to their inability to pay the balance amount owing to the COVID-19 lockdown, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, particularly when they sought extensions or refunds? The petitioners argued that the lockdown imposed by the Central and State governments prevented them from collecting cashew usufruct, making it impossible to pay the remaining balance. They contended that their requests for consideration, extension, or refund were ignored, and the cancellation and forfeiture were contrary to the prevailing circumstances and the interim directions granted by the Court. They sought a direction to refund the amounts paid and to consider them for subsequent collection periods. The respondents, through their standing counsel, argued that as per the tender conditions, the petitioners were not entitled to consideration in subsequent notifications because they failed to deposit the remaining amounts based on the earlier tender notification dated November 30, 2019. They also submitted that the authorities had collected some usufruct and were willing to return the amounts collected to the petitioners and permit them to participate in future tenders if conditions were met.