PURAN LAL SAH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 21-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
... 
D 
E 
F 
H 
PURAN LAL SAH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
January 21, 1971 
469 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Contract-Claim on basis of quantum meruit-When sustainable. 
The Public Works Department of the respondent.State had issued a 
tender notice for the construction of a road. The appellant mspected the 
site, went to the place where stone for the construction was said to ~ 
available, and after satisfying himsel'f submitted a tender below th~ esti-
mates in the tender notice. It was accepted and a contract was signed. 
The estimates in the tender notice were prepared by the P.W.D. on the 
basis that stone was available at a distance of 26 chains from the work 
spot. In fact, stone was available at that distance in the C~tonment area 
but for its removal permission of the Cantonment authortlles had to be 
taken. The appellant was not able to obtain the necessary permission and 
so, he had to get the stone from a much longer distance. 
He requested 
for· a higher rate but his request was rejected. Thereafter, he commenced 
work, and after the work was completed the Executive Engineer recom-
mended his case for a higher rate . 
By a subsidiary contract the appellant undertook to execute some addi-
tional work for the department. The quantity of work which the appel-
lant actually performed was far in excess of what was mentioned in the 
contract. He claimed a higher rate of payment 'for such extra work also. 
Since he did not get the higher rates he claimed, he filed a suit which 
was dismissed by the High Court in appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD. : (I) (a) In none of the clauses of the tender notice or condi-
tions of contract or in any other document was there any assurance that 
if stone was not available at the distance of 26 chains the appellant would 
l-e paid higher rates. It was for the appellant to have satisfied himself 
before entering into the contract that the Cantonment authorities would 
permit him to take the stone. Sillce he commenced work aner his request 
for higher rate was rejected, it could not he said that the appellant was 
in any way induced by any assurance. 
The Ex~utive Engmeer's letter 
was only recommendatory and did not establish a.,Y right to obtain a higher 
rate. (472 G-H; 473 0-H; 475 CJ 
(b) It could not be said that once stone was not available at a distance 
of 26 chains, the contract was at an end and that because the appellant 
had done the work, he should be paid on the basis of quantum meruit. 
That remedy would be available only when the original contract had been 
illscharged by the defendant in such a way as to entitle the plaintiff to 
regard himself as discharged from any further performance, and he elects 
to do so; but, where work is done under a contract persuant to its terms 
r.o amount can be claimed by way of quantum meruit. [475 G-H; 476 C-DJ 
Adopi Parshad & Sons. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 793; 
followed. 
(2) On the second item also the appellant could not succeed, because 
of cl. 12 of the contract. Under the clllll!IC the apP'!llant was bo11nd to 
perform all additional work which was l'lljuired of him on the same terms 
and conditions in which he undertook to do the main work. 
Further, 
-470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 3 S;C.R. 
paragraph 5 of the special instructions which fanned part and parcel of 
A 
the original contract provided that unless he gave notice that he was not 
prepared to do any extra work in excess of the quantity df the work 
mentioned in the contract plus 30 per cent of that quantity of work, ond 
settled fresh rates for such extra work over 30 per cent, the appellant 
could not claim anything other than the rates mentioned in the contract. 
;[476 E-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1687 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 8, 1965 
<Of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 84 of 1954. 
N. S. Biizdra and P. C. Kapur for the appellant. 
G. N. Dixit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal 
is by a certificate 
under Art. 133(1) (a) of the Constitution againsQ'the judgment and 
decree of the Allahabad High Court dated 8th March 1965 setting 
aside the decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the suit of the 
plaintifl'-appel!amt. 
The appellant had submitted a tender to construct mile 3 
of Nainital Bhowali Road at 13 per cent below the rates given in 
Schedule B to the notice i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.