9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) that the consideration due under a contract was to be payable where it exceeded ₹ 3,000/-, in four equal instalments, the first instalment being payable immediately at the close of the auction; (d) that the successful bidder had to sign immediately at the close of the auction the bid- sheet for the contract knocked down in his favour; (e) that the sales of contracts beyond the power of sanction of the. Divisional Forest Officer were subject to the sanction of the competent authority and the successful bidder was bound by his bid until orders were passed by the competent authority; (f) that the contract deed and the security bond were to be executed by the successful bidder and his surety immediately at the close of the auction; (g) that if the successful bidder fails to pay the full amount of the consideration, or the first instalment or to furnish the security required or to complete the formalities, the earnest money deposited by him was to be forfeited to Government and the contract would be re-auctioned at the risk of the successful bidder and any deficiency happening on such re-sale would be recoverable from the successful bidder as arrears of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by either s. 82 of the Indian Forest Act, (No. 16 of 1927) or rules 28 and 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Forest Contract Rules or under any other provision of the law, and the amount therefore could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue as the contract was not signed or completed by him. He therefore claimed the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the notice issued to him and stopping the respondent from recovering as arrears of land revenue the sum of ₹ 51,500/-. The State contested the case and contended that recovery of the amount could be effected as arrears of land revenue under s. 82 of the Indian Act read with rr. 28 and 29 of the Forest Contract Rules in view of the conditions of auction, which the appellant had accepted. The petition was heard finally by a Full Bench of the High Court in view of a reference by a Divisional Bench. The Full, Bench seems to have held that rr. 28 and 29 of the Forest Contract Rules did not apply to the case as they dealt with breaches arising after the contract in writing had been executed. In this case the admitted position was that the contract in writing had never been signed by the Chief Conservator of Forests and therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on any person, the requirement must be held to be satisfied. The matter was again considered by this Court in Seth Bikhrai Jaipuiria v. Union of India, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 880 It was again emphasised that S. 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, required that a contract, if it was to bind the Government, had (a) to be expressed to be made by the Governor or Governor General, (b) to be executed on behalf of the Governor or Governor General, and (c) to be executed by an officer duly appointed in this behalf and in such manner as the Governor or the Governor General directed or authorised. It was also held that the provisions of s. 175(3) were mandatory, as the object of enacting these provisions was that the State should not be saddled with liability for unauthorised contracts. The matter was considered again by this Court in State of West Bengal v. Messrs. B. K. Mondal and Sons, [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 876. It was held that the provisions contained in S. 175(3) were mandatory. The intention of Parliament in enacting the provision was that the State should not be burdened with liability based on unauthorised contracts. The provision was made in public interest and so the wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween him and the Government satisfying all the conditions of Art. 099(1). The position therefore is that there was no contract between the appellant and the Government before he bid at the auction, nor was there any contract between him and the Government after the auction was over as required by Art. 299(1) of the Constitution. Further, in view of the mandatory terms of Art. 299(1), no implied contract could be spelled out between the Government and the appellant at the stage of bidding for Art. 299 in effect rules out all implied contracts between Government and another person. The view taken by the High Court that s. 155 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code which provides for recovery of money as arrears of land revenue would therefore enure in favour of the Government and enable it to recover the deficiency cannot be sustained. That clause provides for recovery of all moneys falling due to the State Government under any grant, lease or contract and says that they shall be recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. The High Court was of the view that the word contract in this clause includes an implied contract. But if there can be no implied contract b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
