HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU
LPAOW No.637-A/1999, MP Nos.62/1999 & 33/2003
c/w
LPAOW No.77/1999
LPAOW No.578/1999
LPAOW No.643-A/1999
LPAOW No.76/1999
LPAOW No.78/1999
LPAOW No.110/1999
LPAOW No.645/1999
LPAOW No.642/1999
LPAOW No.644/1999
LPAOW No.157/1999
LPAOW No.158/1999
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

LPAOW No.155/1999
LPAOW No.156/1999
LPAOW No.154/1999
LPAOW No.152/1999
LPAOW No.151/1999
LPAOW No.694/1999
LPAOW No.580/1999
LPAOW No.577/1999
LPAOW No.83/1999
LPAOW No.576/1999
LPAOW No.22/1999
LPAOW No.170/2000
LPAOW No.13/2003
LPAOW No.128-S/2001
LPAOW No.129-S/2001
LPAOW No.130-S/2001
LPAOW No.153/1999
APLPA No.4/2007
Contempt (LPA) No.4/2006
LPAOW No.654-A/1999
LPAOW No.100/1999
OWP No.671/1984
Date of order: 29.12.2015
LPAOW No. 637-A/1999

1.R.B.Jodhamal and Co. Ltd. through Shri Joginder Lal Kuthiala, Managing Director
Canal Road Jammu.
2.Shri Joginder Lal Kuthiala aged 65 son of late Shri Bishan Lal Kuthiala, Share
holder/Managing Director R.B. jodhamal & Co. Ltd., 11, Canal Road Jammu
3.M/S Bishan Lal Kuthiala & sons through Shri Joginder Lal Kuthiala Partner, Canal
Road Jammu
4.M/S R.B.Jodhamal Bishan Lal through Shri Vikrant Kuthiala aged 36, Partner Canal
Road Jammu
5.M/S Anil Forest Company through Shri Anil Kuthiala aged 45, partner Canal Road
Jammu
6.M/S Jishan Lal Jaswant Lal Kuthiala, through Shri Anil Kuthiala aged 45 Partner
Canal Road Jammu
7.M/S Bajaj Bros. through Shri Jai Dev Bajaj aged 72 Shakti Nagar Jammu
8.M/S Himalayan Forest Company through Shri Ravinder Lal Kuthiala General Attorney
College Road Pathankot
9.M/S Amar Nath Baldev Raj through Shri Baldev Raj Proprietor Gandhi Nagar Jammu
10. M/S Hans Raj Bharat Bhushan through Shri Abdul Qayoom Partner Canal Road
Jammu
11. Haji Nazir Hussain & CO. through Haji Nazir Hussain Partner Canal Road Jammu
Petitioners.
Vs.
1.State of Jammu and Kashmir.
2.The Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K Government Srinagar/Jammu.
3.The Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle Jammu
 2

4.The Conservator of Forest East Circle Jammu.

5.The Conservator of Forests West Circle Jammu
6.Divisional Forest Officers
a. Kishtwar, b.Bhaderwah,C.Marwa,d.Doda, e.Ramban, f.Billawar,g Poonch.
7.M/S Kishen Chand Girdhari Lal Forest Industries through Shri Satish Mahajan Partner
Canal Road Jammu.
8.M/S K.C.G.D.Girdhari Lal & Co. through Shri Sudarshan Mahajan Parnter Canal
Road Jammu
9.M/S K.C. & CO. Chamba Topi through Shri Ramesh Mahajan Partner Canal Road
Jammu
10.M/S Munir Hussain & Co. through Shri Munir Hussain Panjtirthi Jammu
11.M/S Ghulam Din Iram Mir through Shri Munir Hussain Panjtirthi Jammu
12.M/S Mali Ram & Sons through Shri Dwarka Nath partner Canal Road Jammu
13.M/S Ghulam Din Vidya Devi through Shri Munir Hussain Panjtirthi Jammu
14.M/S Kishen Chand Ram Chand & Co. through Shri Arvind Mahajan Partner Canal
Road Jammu
15.M/S Khanna Timbers through Shri Vijay Khanna partner Gandhi Nagar Jammu
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

16.M/S Baldev Singh Surinder Singh & Co. through S. Surinder Singh Partners Shakti
Nagar Jammu.

Respondents.
LPAOW No. 77/1999:
M/S Satpal & co. vs. State of J&K plus 3 ors.
LPAOW No.578/1999:
M/S Pir Panjal Syndicate vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government, Forest
Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No.643-A/1999
M/S Baldev Singh Sunder Singh & Co. through S. Baldev Singh Partner Shakti nagar
plus 4 ors.
Vs.
State of J&K through Chief Secretary, J&K Government, Jammu plus 21 ors.
LPAOW No. 76/1999
M/S Satpal & Co. vs. State of Jammu plus 3 ors.
LPAOW No. 78/1999
M/S Confiner Combine vs. State of J&K plus 3 ors.
LPAOW No. 110/1999
M/S Khanna Timbers vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary J&K state plus 5 ors.
LPAOW No. 645/1999
M/S New K.C.G.O & Co. vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary J&K State, Jammu
plus 5 ors.
LPAOW No. 642/1999
M/S New K.C.G.D & Co. plus 7 ors vs. State of J&K through Secretary, J&K Jammu
plus 5 ors.
LPAOW No. 644/1999
M/S Ram Panjwani & co. vs. State of J&K through Secretary J&K State plus 5 ors.
LPAOW No. 157/1999
Muhammad Afzal Khandey vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department, Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 158/1999
Muhammad Afzal Khandey vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department, Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 155/1999
Ghulam Mohiuddin Khandey vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 156/1999
M/S Fairdeal & Co. vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 154/1999
Muhammad Afzal Khandey vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 152/1999
M/s Astral Traders vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 151/1999
M/S Astral Traders vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar.
 3

LPAOW No. 694/1999

M/S Trehan Enterprises vs. State of J&K plus 3 ors.
LPAOW No. 580/1999
M/S Mushtaq & Co. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary to Government
Forest Department Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar plus four ors.
LPAOW No. 577/1999
M/S Mushtaq & Co. vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar. Plus 4 ors.
LPAOW No. 83/1999
Pt. Hardatt Sharma vs. State of J&K through Principal Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Jammu plus three ors.
LPAOW No. 576/1999
M/S Mushtaq & Co. vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar plus four ors.
LPAOW No. 22/1999
M/S Mangat Ram Gupta and anr vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary J&K
Government, Jammu. Plus 5 ors.
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

LPAOW No. 170/2000

M/S Fairdeal Forest Co. vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar. Plus four ors.
LPAOW No. 13/2003
Bestowfur Forest Co. vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar plus four ors.
LPAOW No. 128-s/2001
Mohd Syed Kapra vs. State of J&K through Secretary to J&K Government at
Srinagar/Jammu.
LPAOW No. 129-S/2001
Mohd Syed Kapra vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary J&K Government Srinagar
plus four ors.
LPAOW No. 130-S/2001
Mohd Syed Kapra vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary J&K Government at
present Jammu plus four ors.
LPAOW No. 153/1999
M/S Gh. Hassan Lone vs. State of J&K through Secretary to Government Forest
Department Srinagar plus four ors.
APLPA No. 4/2007
M/S R.B.Jodhamal vs. State of J&K plus 24 ors.
Contempt(LPA) No. 4/2006
M/S R.B.Jodhamal vs. Madho Lal Principal Secretary plus three ors.
LPAOW No. 654-A/1999
M/S Shanker Timber Industries plus two ors vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary
J&K State Government plus five ors.
LPAOW No. 100/1999
M/S Kashmir Hill Forests vs. State of J&K through Chief Secretary J&K Government
Jammu/Srinagar plus three ors.
OWP No. 671/1984
Babu Ram Garg vs. State of J&K plus four ors.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Z.A.Shah, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Vipan Gandotra, Advocate.
Mr. D.C Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anil Verma, Advocate.
Mr. K. K. Jandial, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, AG with
Mrs. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate.

i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No

Press/Media
ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Digest/Journal
 4

N. Paul Vasanthakumar-CJ

1. These appeals are filed by the writ petitioners, who are

registered as forest lessees with the Forest Department of

J&K State. The writ petitioners had secured various forest

leases in Jammu Division of the State by validly executing the

lease agreements. While they were working in their respective

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

lease areas, unprecedented and heavy snowfall took place in

February/march, 1979 resulting in heavy damage to the forest

crop of the State and even in the adjoining State of Himachal

Pradesh. In July, 1979, the government of Jammu and

Kashmir with a view to salvage the damaged trees and saving

the standing trees from potential fire hazards is stated to have

taken a decision to mark and handover all such damaged and

fallen trees to the working lessees in their respective leased

areas/compartment as well as adjoining/adjacent

compartments by marking and handing over for extraction of

the lessees holding their leases in the adjoining areas. The

writ petitioners were asked to execute supplementary

agreement in respect of the adjoining/adjacent compartment

for handing over to them to extract the damaged marked trees

from the adjoining areas and also made the provision of the

principal lease agreements to be applicable to the adjoining

compartments as well. The salvage and removal of the

 5

damaged and fallen trees in the existing leased compartments

were already covered by the principal lease agreements.

2. As per the supplementary agreements the writ

petitioners and other lessees to whom the adjoining areas

were allotted for removal of damaged and fallen trees the

extension of the working period was also granted. The said

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

supplementary agreements also provided for fixation of price

(without specifically mentioning the actual rate) of the

additional trees allotted to the lessees in the adjoining

compartments. The working lessees, including the writ

petitioners after having executed the supplementary

agreements for the respective adjoining areas commenced

their work in the adjoining compartments as directed by the

Chief Conservator of Forests and while the working was going

on, the forest department embarked upon an exercise to work

out the rates, which were to be charged from the lessees in

respect of the snow fallen trees allotted to them in the

adjoining compartments. The writ petitioners associated with

the fixation of rates for the snow fallen trees in the adjoining

areas. The forest department wanted to fix 1979 average

lease rates of the division whereas the writ petitioners and

other lessees insisted that the quality of the snow fallen and

damaged material allotted in the adjoining compartments and

the scattered nature of work which involved very high working

 6

expenditure and investment did not justify fixing of 1979

average lease rates. It was also pointed out that the standing

trees marked in the principal leased compartments were of

much better quality and the working was compact and

concentrated making extraction and use of machinery viable

while in the adjoining compartments the lessees had to

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

dependent mainly on manual labour for operation of salvage

and removal. According to the writ petitioners, the forest

department ultimately accepted that 1979 average lease rates

could not be applicable to salvage and removal of snow fallen

trees in the adjoining compartments. It is also stated in the

affidavit that in similar circumstances, the damaged snow

fallen trees was put to open auction by Government of

Himachal Pradesh in the areas adjoining the state of Jammu &

Kashmir, which could fetch only nominal price for such snow

fallen trees. It is further stated in the affidavit that by

government order No.130-Fst of 1980 dated 18.09.1980 the

government fixed 1979 average lease rates of the division for

snow fallen trees in the adjoining compartments subject to

rebate of 30% in case of Debdar and Kail trees and 40% in

case of Fir trees. The writ petitioners and other lessees, who

were working in the adjoining compartments approached the

department to mark the half broken and dry trees and on

arrival of the marking list in the office of Chief Conservator of

 7

Forests, the lessees claimed that trees so marked i.e. half

broken and dry trees which were standing, on the basis of the

provision in the principal and supplementary agreements,

which according to the writ petitioners, were considered at the

highest level resulting in Cabinet decision No.266 dated

15.06.1981 whereby the government ordered the allotment of

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

half broken dry trees to the working lessees in their adjoining

compartments. The Government issued consequential order

namely Government Order No.100-Fst of 1981 dated

19.06.1981. It was also stated that the rates to be charged

from snow fallen and dry trees in the adjoining compartments

shall be 1979 average lease rates with a rebate of 30% in

case of Dabdar and Kail trees and 40% in case of Fir trees

and on handing over the dry and half broken trees to the

lessees in the adjoining compartments.

3. The government passed another order on 29.01.1982 to

the effect that no further extension in the working period of the

principal leases will be granted under any circumstances. The

said decision was challenged before this Court in OWP

No.141/1982 etc. and according to the appellants thereafter

the attitude of the government changed and the standing dry

and half broken trees marked in the adjoining compartments

worked by the lessees, which had to be handed over to the

writ petitioners and other lessees, were not handed over,

 8

hence WP No.350/1982 was filed for handing over additional

marked standing dry and half broken trees. The writ petition

filed namely OWP No.141/1982 was allowed by this Court on

05.05.1983. Though appeal was preferred the same was

withdrawn subsequently.

4. Insofar the standing dry and half broken trees and for
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

grant of extension, which issue was pending before this Court,

the Government appointed a higher powered Cabinet Sub

Committee for finding out an amicable solution. According to

the writ petitioners, the Committee submitted its report to the

Government and consequently Government order No.205 of

1984 dated 22.02.1984 was issued allowing extension of

working period upto December, 1984 to enable the lessees

the extract trees from the main lease and also those allotted to

them in the adjoining compartments. The government ordered

execution of fresh agreements, which were also executed with

a view to complete the work in the principal and adjoining

leased areas within the time allowed. For setting the

controversy regarding entitlement of the lessees to the

standing dry and half broken trees in the adjoining

compartments, the department prepared the bills as per the

directions of the Chief Conservator of Forests in his letter

dated 14.10.1983 and on receipt of the some of the bills the

writ petitioners made enquiries as to how the rates were fixed

 9

and at that time they came to know that the government had

issued government order No.61-Fst of 1982 dated 30.04.1982

stating that the action taken by the forest department in

allotting half broken and dry trees to the forest lessees/State

Forest Corporation at 1979 average lease rates for the division

without any rebate is hereby confirmed. In any such division

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

where average lease rates are not applicable the other lease

rates of nearby division should be adopted. The said decision

of the government, the letter of Chief Conservator of Forests

dated 14.10.1983 and the consequential bills are challenged

before the Writ Court by raising various grounds including the

principal of promissory estoppel as well as decision of the

government without stating any reason denying the rebate.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions against

which these appeals are preferred.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

argued that the forest lessees which were given lease of forest

compartments were bound by the amount fixed for the timber

they have to remove. The snow fallen/damaged trees which

were in the adjoining compartments were also permitted to be

removed by the adjacent lessees for which the Government in

Government Order No. 130/FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980

granted rebate of 30% on Deodar and Kail trees taking

average lease rates of 1979 as the basis and 40% rebate on

 10

Fir trees. No dry or half broken or top broken tree was marked

for removal. It is also the contention of the senior counsel that

subsequently a decision was taken to remove the dry, half

broken and top broken trees from the Forest on Silvicultural

considerations and those trees were also marked and allowed

to be removed by the lessees. At that time, no rate was fixed

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

for half broken, top broken and dry standing trees and no

rebate is granted by the government even though the Chief

Conservator of Forest recommended for granting rebate and

without considering the said recommendations, the

Government passed an order in Government Order No.

61/FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982, that too, without stating any

reason. Learned senior counsel heavily relied on Government

Order No. FST/32/66 of 1966 dated 12.04.1966 and contend

that dry standing trees or dry fallen trees whenever sold shall

be charged at half rates except dry Deodar which shall be sold

at 3/4th of the rates and the green fallen trees will be charged

at full rates. It is also the case of the appellants that

subsequent to the Government Order and during the

pendency of the writ petitions, the Government constituted an

Expert Committee through Government Order No. 145/FST of

1985 dated 31.08.1985 comprising of three retired Chief

Conservators of Forest and the said Committee recommended

for conversion of dry trees and unfit volume of trees as green

 11

fit volume by applying standard conversion volume formula

and then the sanctioned rates be applied. The Government

rejected the said report without giving any answer /reason to

the said recommendations.

6. In short, the submissions of learned senior counsel for

the appellants are that the half broken green/dry trees which
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

were granted permission to be removed cannot be compared

to the green fallen trees or full standing trees for the purpose

of valuation and nobody can dispute the damage caused to

the trees either due to dry or half broken trees and non-

consideration of said aspect by the Government while passing

the impugned order in Government Order No. 61/FST of 1982

dated 30.04.1982 as well as the subsequent communication

issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest in letter No. 1623-

28/CVII-misc.30 dated 14.10.1983 based on which the bills

were raised and non- consideration of the said aspect shows

total non-application of mind even through Government itself

granted rebate to half broken snow fallen trees by Government

Order No. 130/FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980. The logic

applied to the half broken trees due to snow fall is equally

applicable to the dry or half broken standing trees.

7. When the matter was heard finally on 09.12.2015,

having regard to the non-mentioning of any reason to reject

the claim of the rebate, this Court thought fit to peruse the files
 12

relating to Government Order issued in Government Order No.

61/FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 and the learned Advocate

General, argued the non-availability of the promissory

estoppel to the facts of this case, submitted that he will

produce the files/records pertaining to the Government Order

which was impugned before the learned Writ Court and the
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

matter was adjourned to 17.12.2015 enabling the learned

Advocate General to produce the record/files.

8. On 17.12.2015, learned Advocate General, on

instructions, submitted that records relating to the Government

Order was gutted in fire and the Forest Department has taken

up the matter with General Administration Department by

communication dated 16.12.2015 and some more time may be

granted to trace the files at least from the General

Administration Department including the Cabinet Decision No.

127 dated 05.04.1982. When the matter was again heard on

29.12.2015, learned Advocate General produced the copy of

letter of General Administration Department No.

GDC/SCD/2011/SB dated 18.12.2015 which conveyed that

the old record of the Cabinet Section including the required

cabinet decision was ruined in the deluge of September 2014.

The said letter dated 18.12.2015 was placed before the Court

by learned Advocate General which reads as follows:

 13

“The undersigned is directed to refer the Principal

Secretary to Government, Forest, Environment and
Ecology Department to his O.M No.
FST/Lit/Leas/236/2015 dated 16.12.2015 of the
Cabinet Section, including the required cabinet
decision was ruined in the deluge of September
2014”.

9. We have considered the said fact as well as the

arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

for the appellants as well as the learned Advocate General.

10. In so far as the contention of the appellants which was

forcefully argued by the learned senior counsel that the

respondents are estopped from not giving rebate to the half

broken/dry standing trees which were ordered to be removed,

as the lower authorities have recommended for grant of rebate

and the Government having granted rebate to the snow fallen

trees by Government Order No. 130-FST of 1980 dated

18.09.1980, believing the said promise, the appellants have

removed the half broken green/dry trees and therefore

denying rebate to the half broken dry/green standing trees

which were not covered by the original lease agreement is hit

by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel, cannot be accepted

in view of the fact that the Competent Authority, namely, the

Government or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest have

not decided the issue to give rebate to the half broken

green/dry trees which were standing and merely because the

 14

rebate was given to snow fallen trees, the appellants cannot

presume that the they will get similar rebate in so far as the

half broken dry standing trees. It is well settled principle of law

that for succeeding in the plea of promissory estoppel,

pleadings must show that promise was made by the

competent authority who is empowered to give such promise

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

in writing. The said issue is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 511

( Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam ltd & ors vs. M/S

Adarsh Textiles and anr.). In Para 28, it is held that the

principle of “promissory estoppel is not attracted as the State

Government has not extended any assurance by its conduct

much less unequivocal one, thus, there was no question of

industries acting upon it”

11. Here in this case, before giving permission or allowing

the appellants to remove the half broken dry/green standing

trees, admittedly the Government which is the competent

authority has not decided to give any rebate. Thus, the

Principles of Promissory Estoppel urged by the learned senior

counsel for the appellants was rightly rejected by the learned

Single Judge and we affirm the said finding rendered by the

Writ Court.

12. The second contention raised by the learned senior

counsel that half broken green/dry trees which were not the
 15

subject matter of original lease and which were permitted to be

removed by the lessees/adjoining lessees, there is every

justification to contend that it cannot be compared with

standing trees or fallen trees. It is a fact that the stem of the

broken trees will definitely a damaged one either due to

velocity of the wind or due to dryness. Hence, the appellants

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

may be justified in their contention that the same cannot be

compared to that of green trees to claim full amount without

any rebate. Some letters were placed on record to show that

the lower level authorities have recommended for grant of

rebate.

13. The Expert Committee appointed by the Government

during the pendency of the writ petition also submitted its

report recommending the rebate. It is also to be seen that in

the Government Order dated 61-FST of 1982 dated

30.04.1982, no reason is stated to claim the full amount

without rebate to the half broken/dry standing trees. It is true

that even if no reason is mentioned in the order, if reasons are

recorded in the related file, it cannot be treated as arbitrary

and the Court is bound to look into the file. Bearing the said

principle in mind, this Court, as stated supra, directed the

learned Advocate General to produce the entire file to peruse

as to whether the Government had considered all relevant

facts while passing Government Order No. 61-FST of 1982

 16

dated 30.04.1982. Unfortunately, even though the case is

pending before this Court, the record was not preserved and a

casual approach was made by the respondent to destroy the

record which was expected to be preserved in the Forest

Department till the lis is over. The General Administration

Department also by one reason or the other could not

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

preserve the file in its safe custody.

14. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to find out as

to whether decision making authority actually has considered

all relevant facts while denying the rebate to half broken/dry

standing trees which were permitted to be removed by the

appellants. It is also true that for snow fallen trees, 30%-40%

rebate was granted by the Government in Government Order

No. 130-FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980. Hon’ble the Supreme

Court in civil appeal No. 629 of 2003 (State of Punjab vs.

Bandeep Singh and ors) decided on 25th August, 2015 held

that executive orders must contain reasons and reasons

cannot be stated in the counter affidavit. In other words, the

validity of the order must be tested only on the basis of

reasons assigned in the order and not in other respects. Para

4 of the said judgment reads thus:

“There can be no gainsaying that every decision of

an administrative or executive nature must be a
composite and self sustaining one, in that it should
contain all the reasons which prevailed on the
 17

official taking the decision to arrive at his

conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any Authority
cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand
adopted and expressed by it in the impugned
action……….”

15. In such circumstances, this Court is left with only one

option namely to quash Government Order and remand the

matter to the Government to reconsider the issue of grant of

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

rebate or not to the appellants for half broken green/dry

standing trees, permitted to be removed which were really

removed by the appellants and take a fresh decision by

considering all relevant facts having regard to the low value of

the half broken dry/green trees

16. When this Court asked a specific query to the learned

Advocate General on this aspect, the learned Advocate

General fairly submitted that the matter may be remitted to the

Government for fresh consideration having regard to the non

availability of the file relating to the impugned orders to justify

as to whether any reason is mentioned to reject the claim of

the rebate for the half broken dry/green standing trees which

were admittedly not covered under the original lease

agreement. In such circumstances, the orders impugned

before the writ Court as well as the consequential bills raised

by the Forest Department are set aside and the respondents

are granted opportunity to consider all aspects with regard to

 18

grant of rebate or not to the half broken dry/green standing

trees which were allowed to be removed by the appellants by

way of supplementary lease agreements without fixing any

rebate, bearing in mind the factual aspects pleaded in these

appeals except the claim of promissory estoppel and to arrive

at fresh decision. The respondents are directed to consider the

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Muhammad Arooj

same and take a decision within six months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

(Tashi Rabstan) (N. Paul Vasanthakumar)

Judge Chief Justice
Jammu,
29.12.2015
Anil Raina Secy