CHHOTEY LAL GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 14th April 1973 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad.

(2.) The plaintiff Sri Chhotey Lal Gupta, who died during the pendency of this appeal and whose heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6450/- from the defendant Union of India on the allegations that the Union of India had invited tender for the supply of stone ballast through an advertisement which took place on 10th May, 1966. The plaintiff submitted his tender on 11th July 1966 and the said tender was to remain open up to 90 days. The plaintiff could not resile from the offer made in this tender within the aforesaid period of 90 days. The tender remained open till 9th Oct. 1966. By a later dated 26th Sept. 1966 the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow, wrote to the plaintiff to provide basic labour amenities, qualified blaster and qualified manager as required under the Mines Act in the quarry during the currency of the contract. In paragraph 2 of the said letter it was further stated that in case the plaintiff was agreeable for the above, he is requested to attend the office of the Divisional Superintendent on 4th Oct. 1966 at 2.00 p.m. for negotiations. The plaintiff met the Divisional Superintendent and told him that certain new conditions which were not in the original terms of contract have been added in the letter dated 26th Sept. 1966 for the execution of the contract and that he was not willing to agree to the same. Consequently the plaintiff prayed for refund of his earnest money and security deposit. The plaintiff communicated his refusal to execute the work in view of the new condition of the contract by his letter dated 6th Oct. 1966. The Divisional Superintendent, however, vide his letter dated, 7th Oct. 1966 informed the plaintiff that his tender has been accepted. In the said letter he also reiterated and required the plaintiff to appoint quarry Manager, a qualified blaster, other supervisory staff and also provide basic amenities to the labourers as required under the Mines Act before he starts his work in the quarry. The plaintiff, however, informed the Divisional Superintendent that in view of the new condition added by him, he was not bound to keep the tender alive and prayed for the refund of earnest money and security deposit made by him. The plaintiff also served the defendant with a notice under S.80, Civil P.C. but to no effect. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the security deposit as well as earnest money along with interest.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit on the ground mainly that no new condition has been imposed at any stage by the Divisional Superintendent and as the defendant had accepted the tender within the period of 90 days, the plaintiff was bound by his contract to carry on the work of quarry and he could not resile from the contract. In the view of the defendant since it was the plaintiff who had committed breach of contract, the amount of earnest money and security deposit claimed by him stood forfeited and by a letter dated 1st April, 1967 issued by the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow, the plaintiff was informed that the said amount of earnest money and security deposit stood forfeited.