BHAGAT AND COMPANY HAZARIBAGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against a judgment of reversal. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge had decreed the suit, which has been reversed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh, in Money Appeal No. 15 of 1969 ; whereas the Money Suit had been 19 of 1971 registered as No. 125 of 1966 4 of 1966

(2.) The appellant had filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 5,208.76 Paise as the balance due for the works done by the plaintiff-appellant as contractor together with Rs. 1,588.24 Paise interest totalling Rs. 6,797/-with interest pendente-lite and future interest. The case of the plaintiff was that it was a registered partnership firm doing contract business for transport of materials in the district of Hazaribagh. In June, 1961, the Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh, had issued notices inviting tenders for transport of Public Works Department's materials in the Hazaribagh Division for the period ending 30-6-62. The plaintiff submitted its tender as also deposited an earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- as required. On 3-7-61, the Executive Engineer, Hazaribagh, asked the plaintiff- to meet him in connection with the settlement of the contract and when the plaintiff met the Executive Engineer, it was decided that the plaintiff would accept the work at the second lowest tender rate if it was found that the appellant's rate exceeded that rate and ultimately, the Executive Engineer informed the appellant on 4-7-1961 that he had recommended the plaintiff's rate and terms to the Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh, for his approval and also asked the appellant to start the work in anticipation of the approval of the Superintending Engineer. In pursuance thereof, the appellant carried on the work of transportation of the Public Works Department as per tender to the entire satisfaction of the Department. The Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh, subsequently decided to ask for fresh tenders for the work and the Executive Engineer informed the plaintiff on 23-8-61 about this matter and also asked the appellant to take delivery of such materials only which the appellant had already received on the basis of the railway receipts from the defendant- respondents and not to do any further work. The appellant accordingly stopped further work and requested the Executive Engineer to pay the bills for the work already done as agreed to between them. According to the appellant's case, on demand, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer refused to make payment ar.d hence, the suit was filed. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sent on 17-2-1966, which was duly served on the respondent.

(3.) The defendant-respondent filed a written statement contesting the suit. According to the case of the respondent, the Executive Engineer, by his letter, dated 4-7-1961 had authorised the plaintiff-appellant to start the work in anticipation of the approval of the Superintending Engineer, but it was not implied in that authorisation that the rate would be subject to the approval of the Superintending Engineer, meaning thereby that the rate approved by him will be agreeable to the appellant and the plaintiff started the work on the said condition. The plaintiff's allegation that he would get the payment at the rate of second lowest tender was denied and, according to the respondent, the plaintiff" being an old contractor very well knew that he would be paid at the rate approved by the Superintending Engineer. According to the defendant-respondent, no decision was taken by the Superintending Engineer to ask for fresh tenders for the work, but the Superintending Engineer only decided to allow the work to the lowest tenderer, who was one Shri B. L. Choudhary and he was given the work and the plaintiff was accordingly informed. It was also contended that the plaintiff had been paid as per the rate approved by the Superintending Engineer and nothing was due.