MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE PUNDRI Vs. BAJRANG RAO NAGRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for brevity the 'Code') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below which are to the effect that the pLalntiff-respondent is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6,52,730/- from the defendants/appellants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till its realisation. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the defendants-appellants have admitted passing of resolution No. 7 dated 29-4-1999 and some other correspondence between the pLalntiff-respondent and the defendants appellants which establish that the work was carried out by the pLalntiff-respondent for which resolution No. 7 dated 2-4-1999 was passed by the defendants-appellants Municipal Committee. It has also sent estimate prepared by the Junior Engineer of the department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and ex post facto approval to all the works done by the pLalntiff-respondent was granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide letter No. 946 dated 12-7-1999. All the estimates and record placed on record has proved that an amount of Rs. 6,52,730/- was payable by the Municipal Committee and the pLalntiff respondent is entitled to recover the same. In this regard the view of the learned lower appellate Court, deserves to be noticed which read as under :-

(2.) The argument of the defendants-appellants that in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for brevity the 'Act') the contract was required to be in writing if it exceeds Rs. 500/- and that it must be signed by two Members one of whom should be the President or Vice President was rejected. The lower appellate Court has placed reliance on two judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of State of West Bengal v. M/s. B. K. Mondal and Sons AIR 1962 SC 779 and New Marine Coal Co. v. The Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 152.

(3.) Mr. Sameer Rathore learned counsel for the defendants/appellants has vehemently argued that under Section 50 of the Act every contract may or on behalf of the Municipal Committee which exceeds Rs. 500/- has to be in writing and it must be signed by two Members one of whom should be the President or Vice President and the other one Executive Officer of the Secretary of the Committee. Learned counsel has emphasised that this provision partakes the character of Article 299 of the Constitution which provides that all agreement entered into on behalf of the Union of India or of State are required to be in writing and entered into by the President or by the Governor of the State. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Housing Factory Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Committee, 1993 (3) RRR 552. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in H.S.Rikhy case, AIR 1962 SC 554 (supra).