MIR ABDUL JALIL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant before, this Hon'ble Court impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Court's below whereby a claim for Rupees 2149.65 p. was refused.

(2.) It is the admitted case that the State of West Bengal had a scheme under the Small Irrigation Scheme sanctioned for re-excavating the tank on plot No. 2795 commonly known as Baradighi in mouza Bhonta under Police Station Ausgram. A total amount of Rs. 4777/- was sanctioned for the said purpose under the terms and conditions of the scheme of which the beneficiaries, would contribute 55% of the total cost of, re-excavation and the State of West Bengal would contribute 45% of the cost as grant. A works order Exhibit A was executed which reveals that the plaintiff was asked to take up the work immediately and complete the same by 30-6-1968. The said works order stipulated inter alia that tenders would be invited prior to the government share of work being undertaken and that would be so done after completion of the work for the share of beneficiaries and that the date of starting of the work must be intimated to the officer concerned. The Court of appeal below held that no tender was issued in respect of this 45% of the total sanctioned cost though the works order indicated that the plaintiff was asked to complete the beneficiaries' share of work to the tune of 55% by 30-6-1968. Since it was not the case of the plaintiff appellant that after completion of this 55% which fell in beneficiaries' share, he sent intimation to the Government and then commenced this other 45% of the government's share. According to the Court of appeal below even it the remaining 45% of work was undertaken by the plaintiff, that was so done without conforming to the terms and conditions of the works order Ext. A and hence the Court of appeal below held that the government could not be made liable for the same. Moreover in the absence of any formal contract within the meaning of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution and there being no concluded contract, the plaintiff's claim was held unenforceable in law, even if it was accepted that the plaintiff actually re-excavated the tank both in the share of the beneficiary as well as in the share of the government.

(3.) The argument advanced by the appellant that the State was bound to recompense since Section 70 of the Contract Act would be called into play did not weigh with the learned Judge, and he was of opinion that even prior to the B. D. O.'s verbal instruction or assurance, the re-excavation work was undertaken. There appeared to him some doubt as to at what point of time the work was actually undertaken and if the same was commenced even prior to the issuance of the works order or the sanction of the scheme, the plaintiff was not entitled to contend that he actually did the government's share of the work pursuant to the terms of the works order. The learned Judge further held that the State Government did not derive any benefit by the work and since the stipulation to pay 45% was a were grant, the plaintiff could not get relief under Section 70 of the Contract Act, even if it was assumed that the plaintiff did the government's share of work.