THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS Vs. THE ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Madras has preferred this second appeal from the judgment of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras on appeal from the judgment of the IV Assistant City Civil Judge Madras, the decision on appeal going against the State. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, Rohtas Industries Ltd, against the State for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,514 with interest and costs. The plaintiff, a limited company engaged in the manufacture of paper, cement etc, at Dalmianagar in Bihar State, claimed under this action, return of a sum of Rs. 1000 deposited as security amount and a sum of Rs. 300 deposited along with tender which the plaintiff made in terms of the provisions as to the submission of the tender. The tender was for the purchase and removal of waste paper accumulations in Government offices and press cutting accumulations in Government Press, Madras and its branches for the year 1955 -56. On 10th June 1955, the Controller of Stationery and Printing, Madras called for the tenders. Clause 2 of the tender provided that the tenders must be accompanied by a deposit of Rs. 300 which should be paid in the Reserve Bank of India and the relative chalan should be enclosed with the tender. Clause 4, an important clause, in the tender notice provided that if a tender withdrew his tender before settlement, his tender deposit would be for feinted to Government. Clause 5, equally important, said that in the case of unsuccessful tenderers, the tender deposit would be returned to them. Clause 6 which has been the subject matter of construction by the courts below may better be set out fully. It runs thus: - -

(2.) Under Clause 8, the contractor will have to make his own arrangements to collect the waste paper accumulations in various Government offices in Madras State both in the city and mofussil within 15 days from the date of receipt of intimation from the officers concerned. The cost of waste paper was payable to the officers from whose office the waste paper or the press cuttings were collected at the time of taking delivery. There is no dispute that the plaintiff became the successful tenderer and his tender was accepted by the Government. Ex. B -6 is the order of the Government wherein it is stated that the Controller of Stationery and Printing who had called for tenders recommended to the Government, for acceptance, the tender of the plaintiff for the purchase and clearance of waste paper, the rates quoted are shown. Clause 3 of this order dated 18th October provides inter alia: -

(3.) The agreement, it is stated, was to be in force from 1 -4 -1955 to 31 -3 -1956. It is also an admitted fact that on the acceptance of his tender in terms of clause 6, the plaintiff provided the deposit of Rs. 1000 and a sum of Rs. 1.80 in cash for stamp duty on the agreement to be executed. But the agreement was not executed despite repeated requests by the plaintiff. It is seem from the judgments of the courts below, that on several occasions, the plaintiff called upon the State, of course through the Controller of Stationery and Printing, to send, the agreement referred to in clause 6 of Ex. A. 5 and that reply was always to the effect that the matter was under consideration. Under Ex. A. 50 dated 23 -12 -1955, the plaintiff wrote to the Controller of Stationery and Printing referring to the delay in sending a copy of the agreement and stating that the plaintiff did not know where it stood and what its obligations were under the contract. In Ex. A. 52 dated 21 -12 -1955, it is stated by the Controller that the draft agreement had been submitted to the Government for approval and that it would be sent in due; course, But it is common ground that no agreement eventually came to be executed. It is seen that the plaintiff had also been repeatedly requesting the government to intimate the various officers where from he could get these accumulations. Ultimately, nothing transpiring by his correspondence, on 6 -1 -1956 the plaintiff withdrew his tender and refused to carry out any more work. The plaintiff had removed certain quantity of waste paper, but there is no dispute that these were paid for. It is seen that it was after 6 -1 -1956, the Government authorities began to intimate the plaintiff of the accumulations of stocks.