K. P. CHOWDHARY versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 15-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
K. P. CHOWDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
March 15, 1966 
[P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATIJLLAH, 
J.C. SHAn AND S.M. S1KR1. JJ.] 
Con.srtitution oj lndla, 1950, A.rt. 299(1)-lmplled eontrac11, if permis-
sible. 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, s. 155(b)-Recovery under impli-
ed contract. 
The appellant gave tho high'"t 
bids for two foreat contracts at an 
auction. As the amount of the contract waa more than what the Division 
Forest Officer coqld accept, the matter waa referred to the Chief Conser-
vation of Forests who had the necessary authority to accept the bids. Aftsr 
the cloee of the auction the appellant had signed the contract form as 
required, and tho document& were aen.t to the Chief Conservator of Fortets 
for unction and signature. Before the Chief Conservator of Foresta 
could accept the contract, the appellant railed a dispute as to the marking 
of the trees. . As that diapute waa not settled to tho satisfaction of the 
appellant he refused to complete the contract. The Divisional Forest Officer 
pve notice to the appellant that if he did not complete the formalities 
action would bo taken under the conditions of the auction to re-auction 
the contract and if there WM My deficiency it would be recovered from 
him. He did not comply and ultimately he was infon»ed that the two 
contracts had been cancelled and would be re-auctioned at hii risk. The 
contracts were re-auctioned at which there was certain deficiency in the 
amount. A letter was written to the Tehsildar for recovering this deiclent 
a.mount from the appellant as arrears of land revenue as per the cond.tiom 
of auction. Thereupon, the appellant filed .a writ petition challenging the 
recovery of the amount -.is arrears of land revenue as the contract was not 
signed or completed by him. The High Court dismissed the petition. In 
appeal to this Com:t. 
· 
HELD: Section 155(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 
does not assist the State in realising this amount as arrears of land reve-
nue. 
What was said in the earlier caecs by this Court with respect to s. 175(3) 
of the Governm&nt of India Act, 1935 applies w:th equal force to Art. 
299(1) of the Constitution. Two consequences follow from these d~isons. 
The first is that m view of Art. 299( 1) there can be no implied contract 
between the Government and another penon, tho reason being that if 
1uch implied contracts between the Government and another person were 
allowed, they would in effect make Art. 299(1) weleas for then a person 
who had a contract with Government which waa not executed at all in the 
manner provided in Art. 299( 1) could get away by saying that an implied 
contract may be inferred on the. facts and circumstances of a particular 
c.se. This is of coune not to say that if there ii a valid contract as en-
waged by Art. 299(1), there may not be implications arisin~ out of such 
a contract. The eecond consequen.co which follows from the1e decisions 
ii that if the contract between the Government and another person i!I not 
in full compliance with Art. 299(1) it would be no contract at all and 
could not be enforced either by th• cto.oruaent or tty the other persoa as 
a centract. [J24 A.DJ 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966) 3 s.c.R. 
S1at1 of &luv v. Mf1. Karam Cltand Tlrapar (1962) 2 S.C.R. 827, $1tlt BikltrtJ,/ 
Joipurilll v. Union of India (1962) 2 S.C.R· 880, Stall of the Wat &tilal v. M11. 
B.K. Molfdal (1962) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 876, Chaturbhuj Yitha/das Ja1411t v. M<>ralrwar 
Prashram (1954) S.C.R. 817, and (S) Unio11 of Jndiav. A.L. Ra/Ito Rmlt,[1964) 3 S.C.R. 
164, followed. 
A 
In the present case there was no contract between the appellant and 
tho Go\-ernment before he bid at the auction oor was there any contract B 
between him and the Government after the auction was over as required 
by Art. 299( 1) of the Constitution. A3 there can be no implied conlraet 
between the Government and another person in view of the mandatory 
provision of Art. 299( l) of the Constitution there can be no queitioo of 
recoveiy of any money under an implied contract under cl. (b) of s. 155 
of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. [924 B-HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATF. JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAi. No. 669 OP C 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 5, 
1961 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M. P. 
No. 153 of 1961. 
• 
J. P. Goyal, for the appellant. 
D 
1. N. Shroff, for the respondents. 
The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.