State Of Bombay vs Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar on 15 July, 1954
12. Then we have rather an instructive case in--'Govt. of Bombay v. Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Co., Ltd', AIR 1944 Bom 244 (H). Sir John Beaumont and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha were in that case considering an agreement made by a Collector as agent for the Secretary of State and the question arose whether the Commissioner could under Section 211 cancel such an agreement; and Sir John Beaumont, in his Judgment, points out that it was open to the Commissioner to set aside the order on which the agreement was founded, but that he could not cancel the agreement, and the learned Chief Justice is at pains to point out that he could not cancel the agreement because the agreement was entered into by the Collector, not as a subordinate officer of the Commissioner, but as agent of the Secretary of State and entered into by the Collector in that capacity with the parties. Therefore, a clear distinction is made by the learned Chief Justice in this case between agreements entered into by the collector as a subordinate to the Commissioner and the Collector as the agent Of the Secretary of State.