BUDHMAL Vs. SHRI GULABSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Budhmal Radhakishan Parmar under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ, order or direction against the State of Rajas-than, and the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jaipur, and the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jodh-pur, 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 for 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 extension 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.