LAKSHMI NARAIN RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, The plaintiff has prayed for a money-decree for a sum of Rs. 23,12,484/-(Rupees twenty three lakhs twelve thousand four hundred and eighty four) by way of damages for breach of a contract The State of Bihar is the sole respondent.

(2.) According to the case of the plaintiff, he hag been supplying Mahua-Molasses spirit to the Government Warehouses in different districts of the State of Bihar, under licences issued for a term of three years at a time, under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Rules. The Government has been calling for tenders for the said supply before entering into a contract and issuing the licences. The plaintiff obtained such a contract for a period of three years ending on the 31st of March, 1959 and supplied Mahua-Molasses spirit during this period. For the subsequent period of three years ending on the 31st of March, 1962, various tenders were invited by the Commissioner of Excise. Bihar, and the plaintiff filed his tender along with other persons. After a negotiation in regard to the terms, an agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the State of Bihar through the Excise Commissioner for supply of Mahua-Molasses spirit at a particular rate and the plaintiff started making the supply. However, the licences for the purpose were not issued until the 26th September, 1960. The licences which were granted on the 26th of September, 1960 in favour of the plaintiff were again for a period of three years ending on the 31st of March, 1962. According to these licences, the commodity to be supplied was not Mahua-Molasses spirit, but pure Molasses spirit. This was according to the plaintiffs case, in breach, of the contract. The price of pure Molasses spirit is higher than that of Mahua-Molasses spirit and the terms settled and mentioned In the licences were not profitable for the plaintiff for supply of pure Molasses-spirit. From the 10th December, 1959, it is further averred, that the State Officers forced the plaintiff to supply pure Molasses spirit in accordance with the actual terms mentioned in the licences. The plaintiff protested and did not want to accept the licences on the terms mentioned therein, but under undue pressure which was put on him and under coercion, he started supplying pure Molasses-spirit. On account of this, he had to suffer loss, for the compensation thereof, he filed the suit.

(3.) A notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') was served on the State on the 31st March, 1965 and the suit was filed on 31st of May, 1965,