MOHAMMED GAZI versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 31-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--'' 
-! 
-
MOHAMMED GAZI 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 2000 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Equity clause-Application 
of-Tenders invited for purchase of Tendu leaves-Highest bid of respondent 
' No. 4 cancelled on account of complaints made by other bidders and alleged 
manipulations on the part of the official-respondents-Fresh notice for tenders 
in which the appellant was declared the highest bidder-Appellant called upon 
to execute purchase agreement in pursuance of which he deposited Rs. 
2,68,217. 72 as security amount-On account of litigation initiated by respond-
ent No. 4 without impleading the appellant as party and stay order in that 
case, the appellant was prevented from collecting the Tendu leaves-Request 
of the appellant to refund his security as leaves had already perished and 
rotten, rejected and direction issued to him to execute the agreement-
Consequently the appellant filing a writ petition for refund of earnest money 
which was allowed-However, in appeal, the Division Bench of High Court 
directing that a sum of Rs 30,000 be deducted from the earnest money of the 
appellant on the basis of equities by holding that State. was also not 
responsible for the fault-Tenability of-Held, such a direction of the High 
Court cannot be sustained in view of the findings of fact returned in favour 
of the appellant-The appellant had not committed breach of any condition 
of the tender as he was prepared to accept the Tendu leaves which he could 
not lift on account of stay order-Appellant held entitled to refund of the whole 
amount of the earnest money deposited by him. 
Maxims-Actus curia neminem gravabit-An act of the Court shall preju-
dice no man-Lex non cogit ad impossibilia-Law does not compel a man to 
do which he cannot possibly perfonn-Applicability of 
Tender notice inviting tenders for disposal of Tendu leaves was is-
sued by the respondent-State. Respondent No. 4 was declared the highest 
bidder in respect of one of the lots of Tendu leaves. However, the highest 
hid of respondent No. 4 was not accepted and his tender was cancelled on 
account of complaints made by other bidders and alleged manipulations 
on the part of the official-respondent. Fresh notice for tenders for the 
871 
A 
B 
c 
D-
E 
F 
G 
H 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
aforesaid lot was issued in which the appellant was declared the highest 
-
bidder. He was called upon by the official-respondent 1 to 3 to execute 
. ., 
purchase agreement as per the tender notice, with the Conservator of 
Forests after depositing the balance security. Consequently, the appellant 
deposited a sum of Rs. 2,68,217.72 as security amount. 
B 
In the meantime, respondent No. 4 filed writ petition in the High 
Court challenging the order of cancellation of tender and the re-tender 
notice. The appellant was not impleaded in the said writ petition. The 
-
application filed by the appellant for intervention in the writ petition was 
rejected. The High Court passed an interim order restrairiing the official-
c 
respondents from taking any step pursuant to the fresh tender notice. 
Ultimately, the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 was disposed of by a 
Single Judge of the High Court by quashing the order of cancellation of 
tender to the extent by which the earnest money deposited by respondent 
No. 4 had been directed to the forfeited and a direction was issued to 
D 
refund the earnest money to respondent No. 4. 
After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant requested 
respondents 2 and 3 to refund his security amount of Rs. 2,68,217.72. It 
was pleaded that since Tendu leaves, which was a perishable item, had 
already perished and rotten with the result that its value had become 
E 
useless by lapse of time. However, respondent No. 2 sent an ante dated 
... 
letter directing the appellant to execute the agreement and deposit the 
remaining tender price. The appellant, then, filed writ petition in the High 
• -
Court praying for quashing of the order of the High Court rejecting his 
application for intervention in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 
and refund of earnest money along with an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs claimed 
F 
as damages. He also prayed that he should not be compelled to enter into 
an agreement by respondents. The said writ petition was allowed by a 
Single Judge of the High Court with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to 
refund t

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