STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiff is a forest contractor, while defendant No. 1 is the Etate of Orissa and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the Certificate Officer and Divisional Forest officer of Bolangir. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that he being the highest bidder in the public auction of forest coupes in the year 1950-51 held on 15-10-50, matkhai coupe No. 12, lot No. 4 was knocked down in his favour for Rs. 2,500/- on which he deposited the security money of Rs. 250/- and signed a blank agreement form. Under the relevant rules, the competent authority to accept the bids exceeding Rs. 2,000/- was the Conservator of Forests. The agreement (Ex. B)after acceptance and signature by the Conservator of Forests was received by him long after the date of bid. In the meanwhile, he had intimated defendant No. 3 of his unwillingness to work the coupe and revoked his offer. In spite of it, he was called upon by defendant No. 3 to pay the first instalment by the notice (Ex. C)dated 14-12-50, but he did not pay as he had already withdrawn his offer. Defendant No. 3 made a report to the Conservator on 23-12-50 to terminate the alleged agreement, but the Conservator purported to determine it on 28-5-51 and the plaintiff was intimated that his security had been forfeited and was called upon to pav the bid amount of Rs. 2,500/ -. Plaintiff's appeal against this order to government was rejected. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 filed a certificate before defendant No. 2 for recovery of Rs. 2,563. 14. 0 on which the latter started certificate Case No. 10/38 of 1952/53 dated 29-7-53. Plaintiffs objection under section 9 of the B and O Public Demands Recovery Act denying his liability was rejected though defendant No. 2 reduced the claim by Rs. 500/- alleged to have been obtained by resale of the coupe. Plaintiff had issued a notice under Sec. 80, c. P. C. to defendant No. 1 on 24. 7. 52 which was received by the Collector of bolangir on 28-7-52. As no relief was granted, he filed the present suit praying for a decree that the sum of Rs. 2,048. 12. 0 or any other amount is not due against him and for a declaration that the certificate in question he cancelled on the ground that no dues were outstanding against him and the order of defendant No. 2 in the certificate proceeding was not in conformity with law or Forest Contract rules.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit pleading inter alia that when the highest bid of the plaintiff was accepted and he signed Ex. B on 15-10-50 the contract was complete, and in any case, the contract became concluded on 6-11-50 when he was informed of the acceptance of the bid by the Conservator of Forests. Defendant No. 3 even at the request of plaintiff was not competent to cancel a completed contract. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay the bid amount less the amount obtained by resale of the coupe in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the Forest Contract Rules. In addition, it was also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of a valid notice under section 80 C. P. C. subsequent to the institution of the certificate case and the previous notice before the cause of action arose was not sufficient compliance with law.