SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of 1 October 2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 10444 of 2001 (Surendra Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar and ors.) The issues raised in the petition were that the petitioner had supplied plants at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per plant and that the State respondents are obliged to deliver to him a sum of Rs. 9,08,000/ - against the supply of the plants. Of the payment which was due on the sale and supply of plants, the petitioner filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the State respondents (a) for the payment of price of the plants and (b) to take delivery of the remaining plants hitherto not received and/or yet to be supplied. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that a contract had been awarded to him for the supply of populus plants.

(2.) APPARENTLY no sooner the petitioner may have come to an arrangement to supply plants at the rate of Rs. 40/ - within a matter of weeks there was a scrutiny of the arrangements between the petitioner and the office of the District Magistrate, Nawadah and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah on the assignment of this contract. Regard being had to the record as was placed in the writ petition, the learned Judge noticed the issues that a dispute existed whether the price of the plants should be Rs. 40 or Rs. 15; that a committee had been constituted for the fixation of price of the plants and that there was a doubt whether the price of each plant could be Rs. 40/ -. Thus, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that if the petitioner still seeks relief for the price of the goods he would be well advised to file a suit for recovery of the price.

(3.) THE Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, also present in Court are the Commissioner, Magadh Division and the District Magistrate, Nawadah. Candidly it has been submitted by the State counsel that not much record is available for production before the Court. Compared to this is the submission on the part of the petitioner 'scounsel upon an enquiry of the Court. The Court desired to know as to where exactly is the contract which was signed between the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Nawadah. It was answered with the submission that there is no contract which was signed as the contract is being spelled from an office order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, dated 25 March, 2000 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition). After this office order was issued on the part of the petitioner there was a rush activity in supplying the plants. If indeed a contract is spelled out for supply of plants worth Rs. 9,08,000/ - then it does seem rather unusual that this office order does not indicate the value of the contract. It does not indicate the quantity which was meant to be supplied and the period within which the contract is to be carried through. If this is a contract, then there must be an offer to be accepted and an adequate consideration which should pass without an issue, and the formality of the contract reduced to writing. Almost within one month of the office order by which the petitioner set about to supply the plants came an order of the District Magistrate, Nawadah that the arrangement by which the petitioner was required to supply the plants stands cancelled. This is the order of the District Magistrate, Nawadah dated 24 April, 2000 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition).