STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAIRAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals by the defendant State of Rajasthan involve a common question of law, and can be conveniently disposed of by a single Judgment.

(2.) IT appears that the respondent-plaintiff in all these cases gave highest bid in the auction held on different dates in respect of different areas for royalty collection contract in respect of building stone for the period commencing from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959 as provided in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, which were then in vogue, no bid was to be regarded as accepted unless confirmed by the Government. The plaintiff's complaint is that they deposited 25% of the amount of bid for one year on completion of the auction as provided in Rule 37 of the aforesaid Rules (which for the sake of brevity called 'the Rules' hereinafter ). But the acceptance of the Government was not conveyed to the plaintiff till 3-6-1958 by which time two months of the period of contract had already expired. It was alleged that on the receipt of the sanction dated 30-5-1958 on 3-6-1958 the plaintiff in all the cases refused to execute the contract and informed the Government that they were not prepared to enter into the contract and the amount deposited by them may be refunded to them. However, the mining Engineer informed the plaintiffs that they were even liable to pay full amount of the contracts and action was being taken to recover the same under the public Demands Recovery Act. Subsequently it appears that for realisation of the dues the Government actually attached some property belonging to the plaintiff under the Public Demands Recovery Act. Consequently the plaintiffs filed the present suits for refund of the 25 per cent of the amount of bid for one year paid by them at the time of auction and also prayed for issue of an injunction against the State of Rajasthan restraining them not to realise any amount from the plaintiff in respect of the contracts in dispute.

(3.) THE defendant State of Rajasthan contested the plaintiff's claims, and pleaded that the plaintiff in all the cases had commenced the work from 1-4-1958 and they were liable to pay the whole of the contract money. The defendant took some other technical objections also, but they were not pressed in this appeal, and, therefore, it is not necessary to make any reference to those objections.