HARIDWAR SINGH versus BAGUN SUMBRUI AND ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 25-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
629 
HARIDWAR SINGH 
v . 
BA GUN SUMBRUI AND ORS. 
February 25, 1972 
[K. S. HEGDE AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
Cqntracts-Acceptance of auction 
bi~ b,y Divisional Forest Officer 
· r;ubject to confirmation by Government does nof result in concluded 
contracts in the ab~nce of confirmation by 
Governm.eint7""""Rules 
of 
Executive Busines9 of Bihar Government 1nade under Art. 166(3) 
of 
Constitution-Rule-10(1) as relaxe(i does not prohibit grallt of /eare by 
vrivnte Neaty-Rule 10 (1) in so far llS it requires prior con.fultation with 
Finance Depar'1nent is mnndatory. 
The right to exploit a bamboo coup in the Hazaribagh district 
of 
Bibar was auctioned in August .1970. 
The reserve price was Rs. 95,000/· 
but the appellant's bid of Rs. 92,001/· being the highest was accepted by 
the Divisional Forest Officer. Too petitioner deposited the security re-
quired and executed an agreement. The Divisional Forest Officer reported 
obout the auc~ion sale to the Conservator of Forests, Hazaribagli Circkl. 
As the price for which the coup was 
provisionally 
settled 
exceeded 
Rs. 50,000 / • the Conservator of Forests forwarded ili> papers reprding 
the auction sale to the Deputy Sl:cfetary to the Government of Bihar, 
Forest Department for confirmation of the acceptan<» by the Govctnment. 
Since provisional . 'Settlement was made for an amount less than the reserve 
prioe the matter was also referred to the Finance Department. When the 
matter was pending the appellant expmserl his willingness to take the 
settlement at the res:rve price of Rs. 95,000/- by his communication dated 
October 26, 1970. The 
appellant thereafter filed an application.. on 
Sovembe< 3, 1970 praying for settlement of the <ioup on 111> b3sis of 
the highest bid. The Minister of Forest by his proceedings dated NOYem-
fier 27, 1970 directed that 111> coup may be. settled with the highest bidder 
viz .. ' the appellant at the reserve price. A telegram was sent by the Gov-
ernment. to the Consorvator of F<W.sts, Hazaribagh Circle on November 
28, 1970 with copy of the same to the Conservator of Forest, Bihar 
<:<>'nliniling the auction sale '3t 'the reserve price of Rs. 95,000/·. ·As 
no intimati911 was receiwd by the Divisional Forest Officel" ·he did not 
communicate the proceedings of the Minister to the appellant. 
On JJecm-
ber 24; respondent No. 6 filed a petition to the Government offering to 
take the settlement of the coup in question for Rs. 101125/·. The 
~1inister, by his proceedings dated December 13, 1970 
canrelled 
the 
•ettlement of the coup with the appellant and settled the same with res. 
pondcnt No. 6 fol: Rs, 101125 / -. 
The appellant filed '3 writ petition 
in the lfigb Court contending that there was a concluded contract when 
the bid·. of the appellant was accepted by the Divisional _Fo.:est Olllcer 
though that was subject to the confirmation by the Government and when 
the Government confirmed acceptance by its proceedings dii&if Decanber 
2 7, I 970. it was no longer within the power of the Gove'rnment ·to malre 
the settlement of th~ coup upon the 6th ·respondent. It was abo con-
tended that the settlement of the coup in favour of the 6th respoodent 
was invalid because (a) rule IO(l) of the Rules of :£xecutive Business 
made under Art. 166( 3) of the Constitution as relaxed by the letter of 
the Deputy Secretary to the Government dated November 27, 1'67 P* 
hibited the grant of r.ase by. private treaty and (b) the requirement of 
12-Ll031SupCT/12 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.R. 
prior consull':ltion in r. 10( I) with the Finance Department was man-
datory and had not been complied with. 
The High Court rejected the 
appellant's contentions. In appeal to this Court by special leave. 
HELD : ( 1) The act~ptance of the appellant's offer was subject 
to 
confirmation by the Government and in the absence of such confirmation 
there could be no concluded contract. 
The appellant's bid was for Rs. 92001/ -. 
The acceptance of the 
bid by the Divisional Forest Officer was therefore, subject to confirmatioo 
by the Government. The pro=ding of the Minister dated November 27, 
I 970 would show that he did not confirm acceptance of the offer by the 
Divisional Forest Officer. What the Minister did was not to confirm the 
acceptance made by tho Divisioll".li Forest Officer bui to accept the offer 
made by the appellant in his communication dated October 26, 1970 
that he would take the coup for the r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.