Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The defendant No. 3, Shri F. A. Lahiri, died during the pendency of the appeal, and his name has been struck off from the array of respondents.

6. The short question for consideration in the appeal is whether there was a binding, valid and concluded contract between the parties. The Union of India and the Chief Administrator, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2; as well as the defendant No. 3, the Conservator of Forests, in their written statements pleaded, inter alia, that under the law the so-called order was not a contract and was not binding on the Union of India, as it was not placed for and on behalf of the President of India. They further pleaded that the Chief Administrator and the Conservator of Forests, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, were not persons authorised to make a contract on behalf of the President of India and, therefore, the alleged contract was not binding or enforceable against the Union of India. That was obviously a plea questioning the validity of the contract because the provisions of Article 299(1) of the Constitution had not been complied with. The learned Addl. District Judge is, therefore, wrong in observing that there is no such plea in the written statements alleging the non-compliance of Article 299(1).

7. In the appeal filed by the Union of India, the principal point taken is that there was no binding contract in view of the breach of Article 299(1) of the Constitution. In the alternative, the second point taken is that, even if the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution had been complied with, the plaintiff having himself committed a breach of the contract, his claim for damages was not maintainable. In the view that we take on the question whether or not the provisions of Article 299(1) of the Constitution have been complied with, there is no need for us to go into the question of breach.

8. It is now well settled that where a contract between the Government and a private individual is not in the form required by Article 299(1) of the Constitution, it was void and could not be enforced and, therefore, the Government cannot be sued by a private individual for breach of such a contract. Article 299(1) lays down three conditions for the making of a contract by a Governor of a State. They are: it must be expressed to be made by the Governor; it must be executed, and the execution should be by such person and in such a manner as the Governor may direct or authorise. The principle is that provisions of Article 299(1) are mandatory in character and the contravention thereof nullifies the contracts and makes them void. There is no question of estoppel or ratification in such a case. The reason is that the provisions of Article 299(1) of the Constitution have not been enacted for the sake of mere form but they have been enacted for safeguarding the Government against unauthorised contracts. The provisions are embodied in the Constitution on the ground of public policy--on the ground of protection of general public and these formalities cannot be waived or dispensed with. That is the reason why the plea of estoppel or ratification cannot be permitted in such a case. [See, Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113; State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal & Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779; State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 110 Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1683; New Marine Coal Co, v. Union of India, AIR 19.64 SC 152; State of Madhya Pradesh v Ratanlal, 1967 MP LJ 104 (SC); K. P. Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 203 and Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 1218].

10. It is now settled by their Lordships that though the words 'expressed' and 'executed' in Article 299(1) of the Constitution might suggest that it should be by a deed or a formal written contract, a binding contract by tender and acceptance can also come into existence, if the acceptance is by a person duly authorised on this behalf by the President of India. This was stated by me in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Firm Gopichand Sarju Prasad, AIR 1972 Madh Pra 43:

"There was a controversy whether the words 'expressed to be made' in Article 299(1) of the Constitution required a formal deed and excluded contracts by mere correspondence. But the controversy has been set at rest by their Lordships in Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram, (AIR 1963 SC 1685) (supra), holding that a contract by tender and acceptance would be valid, provided the other requirements of Article 299(1) are fulfilled, their Lordships made the following pronouncement:--