LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus OM PARKASH BALDEV KRISHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B a D B STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. OM PARKASH BALDEV KRISHAN AUGUST 23, 1988 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950: Article 299-Contracts to be made in the name of President/Governor-Requirement based on public policy-Protection of general public-Cannot be waived or dispensed ' with. The tender submitted'by the respondent firm for the construction of a high level bridge was accepted by the Executive Engineer and they were asked to take up the work in hand, and also to sign the agreement which was under preparation, within IO days. No such agreement was, however, signed nor had the tender of the respondent been accepted on behalf of the Governor of Punjab, which was a mandatory constitu- tional requirement. The respondent subsequently withdrew his offer on the ground that no binding agreement had been signed between the parties. The Engineer-in-charge levied a penalty on the respondent for failure to, start the work. The Superintending Engineer then forwarded the claim for arbitration. The respondent's application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was dismissecl by the Sub-Jndge who came to the conclusion that the Executive Engineer was authorised to accept the tender. The. High Court, in revision, held that no contract in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution, had been entered into. It was inter a/ia urged on behalf of the appellants that a valid and binding contract might come into existence even without a formal agreement duly signed by the parties. d Dismissing the appeal, it was, HELD: (I) A contract entered into by the Governor must satisfy three conditions, namely (i) it mnst be expressed to be made by the Governor; (ii) it must be executed; and (iii) the execution should be by such persons and in such manner as the Governor might direct or JI! authorise. [543F-G] 536 STATE OF PUNJAB v. OM PRAKASH IMUKHARJI, J.I 537 State of Bihar v. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar, [196211 S.C.R. 827; and Seth Bikhraj Jaipuri<Yv. Union of India,. [1962].,2 S.C.R. 880, referred to . . ' (2) ,The provisions of section 175(3) ofthe Government of India Act and the corresponding provisions of Article 299(1) of the Constitu- tion have not been enacted for the sake of mere form but they have been enacted for safeguarding the Government against unauthor,ised con- tracts. These provisions are embodied on the ground of public policy- on the ground of protection of general public~and these formalities cannot be waived or dispensed with. At the same time there cannot be any question of estoppel or ratification in a case where there is contra- vention of these provisions. [545A-C] Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 164 and Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. v. Conservator of Forests, Jammu and Ors., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 937. . A. c Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. ·v. D Sipahi Singh and Ors., [1978] l S.C.R. 375; Mulamchand v. State of Mahdya Pradesh, l,1968] 3 S.C.R. 214 and Union of'lfldia v. Mis. Hanuman Oil Mills Ltd., [1987] Suppl. S.C.R. 84, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 776 of 1988. E "' From the Judgment and Order dated 16. 7 .1987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1993 of 1986. ··•· · · C.M. Nayyar for the Appellants. F Dr. Y.S. Chitale, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover and Mrs. Smita Rao for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J .. This appeal involves a short G question and the. field is more or less covered by the constitutional provisions as well as the authorities of this Court. The Executive Engineer (Construction Division No. 1) PWD B & R Branch, Patiala, invited tenders for the work called "Construction of high level bridge over Tangri Nadi in Mile No. 19/5 of Patiala-Pehewa Road". The respondent in response to the said invitation submitted the tender for H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A the aforesaid work, which was opened on 7th October, 1975. The Executive Engineer informed the respondent on that date, who hap- pened to be the lowest tenderer and before the tender could be finally considered, that the drawings in triplicate be submitted to the Chief Engineer PWD B & R, Suptd. Engineer, PWD B & Rand Executive Engineer Construction Division No. 1 PWD B & R Branch, Patiala. :S The tend.er, however, was recalled in February, 1976 by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.