Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Mr. Kar has contended that Article 299 is a constitutional provision to give protection to the Government and Government alone. Hence it cannot be invoked by the other contracting party to defeat a contract which is not in strict compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution. Such a contract, in his submission is not void. Mr. Kar relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vithal Das v. Moreshwar Parashram . It has, however, been held authoritatively that the provisions of Article 299 are mandatory and not directory and as such a contract which does not comply with the formalities prescribed by Article 299 is unenforceable in law, Mr. Kar's argument is that" it is unenforceable against the Government, but enforceable against the other contracting party by the Government; in other words, one of the contracting parties is bound and not the other. A number of decisions including an unreported decision of the appeal Court has been cited by the parties : Union of India v. Ramnagina Singh, 89 Cal LJ 342 (357); Sankara Mining Syndicate Ltd. Nellore v. Secy, of State, AIR 1938 Mad 749; S.C. Mitter and Co. v. Governor General of India in Council, ILR (1950) % Cal 431; New Churulia Coal Co., Ltd. v. Union of India, . Perumal Mudaliar v. Province of Madras, ; Jagu Singh v. M. Shaukat Ali, 58 Cal WN 1066; Surendra Nath v. Dalip Singh ; P. H. Avari v. State of West Bengal, , and 1944-1 KB 12; Halsbury (Simonds Edition) Volume VIII, Articles 128 and 129 Cheshire page 31. It is not necessary for me in the instant case to express any opinion on this point, in view of my finding that in the instant case the contract is evidenced by the A/T dated 13-11-1952. This A/T is admittedly in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution. It has been proved that R. C. Das Gupta had the authority to enter into the contract. Mr. Roy contended that the Government is bound by its own pleading and in the affidavit of Das Gupta the case made is that the A/T dated 13-11-1952 concluded the deal. It is not therefore open to the Government to make a new case that by subsequent acceptance by the contractor of the A/T dated 13-11-1952, there was a concluded contract between the parties. But the petitioner himself has made the case in 20 (g) of the petition, that he never agreed to accept the counter-offer made in the A/T and he asks for a negative declaration that there was no concluded agreement. Failure of the Government to establish that the A/T dated 13-11-1952 concluded the agreement, would not entitle the petitioner to the negative declaration unless the petitioner succeeds in proving his own case that the counter offer contained in the A/T was not accepted by the petitioner. This case the petitioner, has failed to substantiate and he is not entitled to the negative declaration claimed in the petition, I am not therefore inclined to accept this argument of Mr. Roy.