STATE OF HARYANA Vs. UNIVERSAL ART PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by the then Xth Additional District Judge, Agra in Original Suit No. 473/1990 between M/s. Universal Art Press and State of Haryana and three others by which Court below has allowed the claim of plaintiff/respondent and decreed the suit for Rs. 5,16,525/- alongwith interest @ 18% with cost. Brief facts of the original suit are mentioned below;. M/s. Universal Art Press, Agra has filed a suit against the State of Haryana through secretary in-charge, Lottery Department, State of Haryana, Chandigarh, (ii) State of Haryana through Collector, Chandigarh, (iii) Director, Haryana State Lotteries, Chandigarh, (iv) Sri Sube Singh C/o Controller of Printing and Stationery Department State of Haryana, Chandigarh, alleging that plaintiff is a registered firm and Vijay Kumar Bhargava is its partner. A tender was notified on 5.2.1986 by Director, Haryana State Lotteries for printing of lottery tickets. The conditions were that the papers on which the lottery tickets will be printed shall be supplied by Haryana Lottery Department and the unused papers shall be returned. The tickets who have won first and second price, will be sent to the press for verification and will be returned within a week after verification. The colour of the lottery tickets will be yellow and the design approved by the department will be printed. The yellow colour should be of that quality which cannot be changed easily. Security in the shape of bank guarantee of bills of the press will not be accepted. Tender once submitted will not be allowed to be withdrawn, altered or cancelled in part or in whole. In case of forfeiture of earnest money, the decision of the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Haryana, shall be final. The Controller of Printing and Stationery, Chandigarh, reserves the right to withdraw the work in part or the whole. In case, for any unforeseen changes warranted after placing the order, security will be released on receipt of bill complete with all delivery vouchers. Alongwith other conditions, it was also a condition that all disputes will be settled at Chandigarh. The delivery of the printed tickets will be taken by the representative of the Lottery Department at the press premises after carefully counting, checking the tickets and got packed and dispatched in his presence. The printer will not be responsible for the shortage of any kind at later stage. The printed tickets are to be delivered in the office of the department at Delhi duly packed in packets of ten thousand tickets each. After this tender, plaintiff filed its quotation @ Rs. 1,489/- per lakh lottery tickets and being the lowest quotation, he was given order on 12.5.1986 at Agra to print the tickets after there was a meeting in the chamber of Hon'ble Chief Minister, Haryana on 23.4.1986. Plaintiff was bound to supply the printed tickets within 21 days after getting the order but unfortunately, even after trying his best and making several phone calls to the department, he could not get the paper from the Department. Stipulated 21 days was going to lapse and departmental officers were pressurising for supplying the tickets with a threat that penalty will be imposed. Thus, plaintiff being a small entrepreneur, printed the tickets on the paper which was available with him and supplied the tickets before the date fixed for the draw of the lottery as Department failed to supply papers for printing of the tickets within stipulated 21 days. After that, the tickets were supplied from time to time and thereafter, plaintiff sent the bill to Haryana State for payment alongwith the chart but he was paid only Rs. 3,83,869/- against the total bill of Rs. 7,59,510/-. By filing the suit, plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to get Rs. 3,75,641/- the balance amount and also the amount of interest which he has paid to Panjab National Bank, Agra alongwith refund of Rs. 2,500/- which has been paid as advance at the time of contract. Before that, plaintiff had given notice under Section 80 CPC dated 6.2.1989 to the opposite parties for payment of his dues and after stipulated time, the suit was filed.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have filed their written statement alleging that there was no assurance before the Chief Minister regarding supply of papers for the printing of tickets within 21 days of the printing orders. According to condition No. 5 of the tender, covering the period 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987, the paper for printing of tickets was to be supplied by answering defendants at the press premises at the cost of Lottery Department, Haryana. However, there was no condition of supply of papers before commencing of each year of printing of tickets. In terms of print order dated 12.5.1986, the due date for the supply of tickets to the Lottery Department was 4.6.1986. The papers were, however, received by the firm on 11.6.1986. The firm made delivery of printed tickets of first draw on 11.6.1986 instead of 4.6.1986 by using papers from their own stock. The firm could also have made delivery on due date by using its paper but deliberately delayed the supply of tickets. The supply was continued to be delayed despite the availability of departmental paper. The plaintiff was paid all its dues against the supply of printed lottery tickets and the bills of paper used from own stock due to them except the amount of Rs. 26,961/- being the difference in the rates and payment against the supply of tickets from 124th draw to 126th draw which remained under dispute because of the quality of paper used by the firm from their own stock. It will be paid after the decision conveyed by the high powered committee to the Lottery Department. Plaintiff was informed about this fact.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 submitted their written statement alleging that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit according to the terms and conditions of the tender for lottery ticket printing vide dated 5.2.1986. That all disputes will be settled at Chandigarh. Rs. 2,500/- has already been refunded to the plaintiff vide letter No. 2132, dated 25.3.1988.