BUDH MAL Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Budhmal Radhakishan Parmar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ order or direction against the State of Rajasthan, and the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Jaipur, and the Deputy Commissioner, Civil supplies, Jodhpur, prohibiting them from proceeding with certain contracts with respect to grain.

(2.) The facts alleged by the applicant are that tenders were called for a contract of handling work in connection with the Grain Stores of Jodhpur Division for the year 1951. In that connection, the applicant made a tender, and complied with the necessary directions in that behalf. All the tenders received were opened, and the applicant was verbally informed that he would be appointed contractor for the said work for the year 1951. Thereafter, the deposits of the other tenderers were returned, while the deposit of the applicant was retained. Later, however, the Civil Supplies Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cancelled the contract in favour of the applicant, and called for fresh tenders. In the meantime, the work was carried on by the old contractor, who was given extensions from time to time. It was contended that it was the duty of the officer concerned in their public character to perform specifically the contract with the petitioner, and to refrain from committing a breach thereof, and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to a writ ordering the officers concerned and the State of Rajasthan for specific performance of the contract.

(3.) The application has been opposed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the officers concerned. The fact alleged by the applicant, namely, that he had been granted the contract, has not been admitted. It has also been urged that in any case, the applicant is not entitled to any writ at all, as there was no duty laid on the State or the officers to perform specifically the alleged contract.