Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellants in their written statement, raised a prelimi- nary objection, namely, that the petition was misconceived as there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and so the question of enforcing the arbitration clause in the alleged contract did not arise. It also reiterated its stand earlier taken that the letter dated 15-7-68 written by Oak on behalf of the Secretary, Railway Board, was not a letter of acceptance of the offer of the Respondents so as to amount to a concluded contract binding on the Union of India nor could it be construed as such in view of the mandatory provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The contention was that unless and until a formal instrument of contract was executed in the manner required by Article 299 of the Constitution and by the relevant notifications, there would not be a contract binding on the Union of India and at any rate no such agreement was entered into as it was. alleged that though interviews had taken place at various times between the plaintiffs and the several officers of the Railway Board, no agreement had been reached on vital terms and conditions.

(2) that the three mandatory requirements of Art. 299 of the Constitution for a valid and binding contract made in exercise of the executive power of the Union have not been complied with namely, (a) that the contract was not expressed to be in the name of the President, nor (b) was it executed on behalf of the President, or (c) by a person authorized to execute it on his behalf.

The crucial question which arises for determination is whether there was a concluded contract, and if there was one, whether the mandatory requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution for entering into a valid and binding contract have been satisfied? It is now settled by this Court that though the words 'expressed' and 'executed' in Article 299(1) might suggest that it should be by a deed or by a formal written contract, a binding contract by tender and acceptance can also come into existence if the accept- ance is by a person duly authorized on this behalf by the President of India. A contract whether by a formal deed or otherwise by persons not authorized by the President cannot be binding and is absolutely void.

We do not for the present consider it necessary to go into the question whether and to what extent the requirements of Art. 299 have been complied with in this case. What we have to first ascertain is whether apart from the contention relating to Article 299, a concluded contract has come into existence as alleged by the Respondents. Before us detailed arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellants-to show that notwithstanding the letter of acceptance of 15th July 1968, no concluded contract had in fact come into existence and though that letter accepted certain terms, there were other essential terms of the contract which had to be agreed to and were the subject matter of further negotiations between the parties; that it was the intention of the parties that all those terms were to be embodied in a formal contract to be executed which contract alone was to be binding between the parties; and that in any case the letter of acceptance and the subsequent letters were not by the Director of Railway Stores but by the Secretary to the Railway Board who was not a person authorized to enter into the agreement between the President of India represented by the Ministry of Railways and the Respondents. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Respondents was that all the essential terms of the contract were agreed to and the contract was concluded on 15th July 1968, though at the ins- tance of the Director, Railway Stores further terms with respect to the execution of the contract were the subject- matter of negotiations between the parties and in any case these did not pertain to the essential terms and could not on that account detract from the binding nature of a concluded contract. It was also contended that the letter of acceptance by P. C. Oak though signed on behalf of the Secretary, Railway Board was in fact on behalf of the said Board which was authorized to enter into such a contract. It is in our view unnecessary to consider the several contentions as to whether all the essential terms of the contract had been agreed to or that the contract was concluded by the acceptance letter of 15th July 1968 or whether the parties intended it to be a term of the contract that a formal contract should be entered into between them in order to bind the parties. In this case, we are of the view that the Secretary to the Railway Board, on whose behalf the offer of the Respondents was accepted, was not the person authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the President of India. As can be seen from the various documents already extracted that the tender notice invited offers to be addressed to the President of India through the Director of Railway Stores, Railway Board. Under the general conditions the seller was defined to mean the President of India acting through the Director, Railway Stores and in the default clause it was provided that where the buyer fails to execute the contract, the seller shall have power under the hand of the Director, Railway Stores, Railway Board, to declare the contract at an end. In the letter written by Oak on 25-5-68, as earlier noticed, it was pointed out to the Respondents that their offer was not addressed to the President of India as required under clause 1(3) of the Instructions to the Tenderers and, therefore, the Respondents were required to confirm that their offer can be deemed to have been addressed to the President and is open for acceptance on behalf of the President and their reply should be addressed to the President of India, through the Director of Railway Stores, Railway Board. Even the draft contract dated 27-8- 68 in terms of which the Respondents were insisting on a final contract to be issued to them by the appellants was to be executed by the Respondents as buyers on ,the one part and the President of India acting through the Director, Railway Stores, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) as the sellers, on the other. There is little doubt that the only person authorized to enter into the contract on behalf of the President is the Director, Railway Stores. It is true that the notification of the Ministry of Law issued in exercise of the powers under clause 1 of Article 299 of the Constitution shows that the President directed the 'authorities named therein to execute on his behalf the contracts and assurances of property specified therein. But notwithstanding this, the President is fully empowered to direct the execution of any specified contract or class of contracts on ad hoc basis by authorities other than those specified in the said notification. This Court had in Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, (1) earlier held that the authority to execute contracts may be conferred on a person not only by rules expressly framed and by formal notifications issued in this behalf but may also be specifically conferred. In this case the letter of ac- ceptance dated 15-7-1968 was on behalf of the Secretary, Railway Board, who is not authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the President.