HARI PRASAD RAMESHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by firm Messrs Hariprasad Rameshkumar which had submitted a tender for purchasing tendu leaves in a Government forest. After making the tender and before the tender was accepted, it informed the State that it wanted to withdraw and would not abide by its tender. Some time afterwards, it was informed that its tender had been accepted and that it would be liable to compensate the Government for any loss that may occur to the Government on giving the contract to somebody else. In this case the petitioner has contested the fact that its tender was ever accepted. But we may not go into that question and it may be taken for granted that some sort of an acceptance was accorded to it by the officer concerned. Admittedly, however, no formal agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Government.

(2.) RULE 7 (10) of the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamawali, 1965. providing for sale of tendu leaves prescribes the execution of a formal document in form 'k' given in those Rules within 15 days of the receipt of the order of appointment. Condition no 17 of the tender-notice also prescribes a similar form. Therefore, a valid agreement in respect of the contract could only come into existence between the parties by execution of an agreement in the prescribed form. Article 299 (1) of the Constitution among other things prescribes as follows:-

(3.) THE Government has thereafter given the contract to a third party and has demanded the deficiency between the tender of the petitioner and the contract executed with that third party. This necessarily depends upon a breach of the contract, if any, between the petitioner and the Governor. A claim for breach of contract cannot arise unless there is a valid contract binding between the parties. As stated above, there was no valid contract which could bind the parties.