SATISH MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected Second Appeals are directed against the judgments and order dated 5-3-1974 passed by Civil Judge, Roorkee at Saharanpur in Suits Nos. 88 of 1967 and 87 of 1967 respectively.

(2.) In both the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) Brief facts of the Appeal No. 1605 of 1974 arising out of Suit No. 88 of 1967 are that Satish Mohan Plaintiff appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1400/- deposited by him in the State Bank of India through N.D.G.C. Nos. 910291 and 910293 dated 15-12-66 pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer, Northern Ganga Canal Roorkee and for interest due thereon with the allegations that the plaintiff was a contractor and the defendant owns, maintains and runs Ganga Canal Division. The aforesaid division of the defendant invited tenders from contractors for certain works on 15-12-66. The plaintiff appellant gave his tender for the works mentioned in the plaint and deposited a sum of Rs. 1400/- in terms of the tender notices. It is further alleged that the plaintiff received letter No. 10425/-T-34, dated 4-1-67 on 9-1-67 from the Executive Engineer, Northern Division Ganga Canal Roorkee wherein the Executive Engineer had referred the sending of letters dated 21-12 06 and 29-12-66 and had also disclosed that the said letters contained a request to deposit 3% further security and to sign the agreement. The plaintiff gave reply of the aforesaid letter on 12-1-67 to the effect that the letters dated 21-12-66 and 29-12-66 referred by the Executive Engineer were never communicated to the plaintiff and the condition of depositing 3% further security did not exist in the tender notices. Letter No. C-69/A-2, dated 13-2-67 was given by the Executive Engineer to the plaintiff as reply to the plaintiff's letter dated 12-1-67. The defendant department had disclosed to the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 1400/-deposited by the plaintiff had been forfeited as the agreement had not been signed and that the further deposit of 3% had not been made by the plaintiff. The action of forfeitures was said to have been taken under clause 14 of the tender notice. The Department had neither given work nor had refunded money deposited by the plaintiff and was wrongly insisting on the action of forfeiture. According to the plaintiff, the Department was bound to return his security and was not entitled to forfeit the security amount. The Government has suffered no loss and the State of U.P. is liable to refund the amount deposited by the plaintiff. The plaintiff served upon the defendant notice dated 10-4-1967 under S.80 C.P.C. and the service was made on 12-4-67. After expiry of two months, suit was filed.