MADASAMI NADAR Vs. VIRUDHUNAGAR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who lost in the court of the Subordinate Judge of ramanathapuram in O. S. No. 134 of 1969 on its file is the appellant. In or about the beginning of 1969, there was acute water scarcity in the virudhunagar town which is within the jurisdiction of the Virudhunagar municipality which is the defendant in the suit. The Council resolved on 28-21969 and to wit under Ex. P-17 to supply water to the public. It is common ground that at the time when the Municipality was seized of the subject, they intended that such supply should be for a period of 120 days. Bearing this in mind obviously tenders were called for the supply of such water through lorries to the residents of the town. Ex. A-1 is the tender notice. Ex. B-2 is the tender which the plaintiff gave in which he obviously quoted an offer to supply such waster for a period of 120 days. Under Ex. B-5, which is the agreement for the work in question to be performed by the plaintiff no such period however has been stipulated. The plaintiff started performing the contract but under Ex. A-4, dated 8-5-1969, the defendant issued a Memo stating that the plaintiff was required to offer his willingness for the supply of waster through lorries at Rs. 30 per trip as some of the Municipal contractors were willing to supply water through lorries et the said rate. The plaintiff was directed to offer his willingness within 24 hours from the receipt of the said memo. Before the plaintiff could reply to the memo under Ex. A-6, the defendant issued the following notice-"the Municipal Contractor, V. Madasami Nadar is informed that the contract for the supply of water through lorry is cancelled with effect from 1-6-1969. He should hand over the steel tanks and other materials received from the Municipality to the water works supervisor on the night of 31-5-1969 without fail. " the defendant therefore expressed his intention to cancel the contract with effect from 1-6-1969. The plaintiff, however, caused a reply to be given to the memo Ex. A-4, under Ex. A-5, in which he fully set out his case. According to the plaintiff the original tender was given wide publicity and the Council accepted the plaintiff's tender as it was found to be a fair one. He pleaded that the contract has been concluded and, therefore strongly expressed that he should be allowed to supply the water as usual for the period ending 31-71969. He denied his responsibility to supply such water at the rate of Rs. 30 per lorry per trip. He also claimed damages for the premature termination of the contract. Not being sure whether the Municipality will permit him to continue the supply as was intended under the tender, the plaintiff filed a suit on the file of the Vacation Judge's court. Ramanathapuram in O. S. 25 of 1969 and obtained an interim injunction till 12-6-1969. On 12-6-1969, the defendant entered appearance in the suit end wanted time for counter till 17-6-1969. Thereafter the Vacation Judge passed the following order-

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement denies that the period of 120 days and that it was true that the contract was terminated as stated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff, after such termination of the contract expressly in writing, was not either legally or equitably obligated to supply any more water as the contract was cancelled and such cancellation was in the best interest of the municipality and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any sums towards such services rendered by him between 1-6-1969 to 17-6-1969. No doubt, it is conceded that the plaintiff moved the civil court for an injunction and that such an injunction as was stated by us earlier and as it is seen from ex. A-8 was passed by the civil court in which the suit was laid. It is also conceded that the plaintiff continued to supply water to the defendant municipality during the aforesaid period but it is claimed that it is a voluntary and officious act on the part of the plaintiff though I may be founded on the foot of the order of interim injunction granted by the civil court. Reliance is placed upon the ultimate order of dismissal of the application for injunction made by the civil court and it is said that the supply of water being not the result of a lawful or a bona fide act, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed-1. Whether the cancellation of contract on 18-6-1969 is valid and binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether there was a contract for supply of water for 120 days from 1-4-1969 as alleged by the the plaintiff?

(3.) WHETHER there is any breach of contract by the defendant?