STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab, defendant-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1978 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Patiala by which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon. Facts giving rise to the present, appeal are as under:-

(2.) The suit was resisted by the State of Punjab. In their written statement, they raised some preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit; suit not being properly valued for the purposes of Court fee; legality and validity of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and plaintiff having no cause of action. No time-limit. was claimed to have been fixed for obtaining the approval of the State Government in respect of the auction held on 30.8.1974. The deposit of money of Rs. 20,000/- was admitted. The fact that the period of licence for catching the fish was to be operative from 1.9.1974 to 31.8.1975 was admitted. The plea taken by the State on merits was that the highest bid offered by the plaintiff for the year 1974-75 being lower than the average income for the last three years the case was required to be approved by the State Government and it was submitted for approval on 31.8.1974 and the State Government conveyed the approval on 6.1.1975 and it was passed on to the plaintiff-respondent on 8.1.1975. The factum of telegram sent by the plaintiff was admitted though the correctness of the contents of the same were denied. It was further pleaded that the bidder had no right to retract from the contract for whatsoever reasons and, therefore, no refund could be claimed nor was any compensation/damages available and permissible under Rule 8(1) (2) of the Notification dated 1.8.1966. The plaintiff-respondent was charged with having failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract on receipt of the necessary sanction which was conveyed to him on 8.1.1975 and thus was liable to be black-listed and for forfeiture of the security amount.

(3.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: