STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three connected first appeals and arise out of two original suits Nos. 66 of 1964 and 46 of 1966 of the Court of the Addl. Dist Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, and the Court of the Additional District Judge, Toi k, decided on 22nd October, 1970 and 30th November, 1972 respectively, in the following circumstances

(2.) THE Director, Printing and Stationery Department, Government of Rajasthan, here in after referred to as Director, invited tenders for supply of stationery articles for the year 1961 -62 commencing from 1 -4 -61 to 31 -3 62. Ghanshyamdas who carried on the business in the name and style of Saini Book Depot, Jaipur hereinafter called as the contractor, submitted Tender No. 58 for I tem No. 27, namely, 'Cover Kraft paper 18'x12' of 22'x29' 60 lbs. (printed on one side)'. He quoted two rates for two qualities of such covers. The Purchase Committee of the Government of Rajasthan approved the Second Quality of Cover Kraft paper quoted in the tender, the rate of which was Rs. 89/per thousand. The Purchase Committee also approved the sample of the second quality submitted along with the tender. After some correspondence, the Director on behalf of the Governor, Government of Rajasthan, and the contractor entered into an agreement on 2 -8 -61. In pursuance of the agreement, the contractor supplied during the year 1961 -62 four lakhs, one lakh, one lakh and 81 thousand covers to the Government Presses at Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur and Bikaner respectively. The supply of one lakh covers made to the Government Press, Jodhpur was rejected and the whole lot of covers was sent back to the contractor on the ground that the covers supplied by the contractor ware half -inch less width -wise, that is, the width of covers was 111/2' instead of 12'. The supply made to the Government Presses, Jaipur, Udapour and Bikaner was accepted and the bills submitted by the contractor to the said Government Presses were paid by the respective Government Presses. For the subsequent year 1962 -63 tenders were again invited and the Purchase Committee again approved Tender No. 99 of the contractor for the supply of the cover Kraft paper. The contractor in pursuance of Tender No. 99 supped 18 lakhs of such covers to the Government Press at Jaipur vide bills dated 27 8 -62. 13 11 -62, 2312 -62 and 15 -3 -63 amounting to Rs. 12522.44 P When the question of payment of these bills arose, the Printing and Stationery Department, Rajasthan, instead of making payment informed the contractor vide its letter dated 20 -3 -63 that a sum of Rs. 10817.38 P. has been ordered to be deducted from the said bills amounting to Rs. 12522 44 P, because covers supplied during the previous year, namely, 1961 62 to the Government Presses at Jaipur, Udaipur and Bikaner, vide Tender No - 53 were nude out of Kraft papars having weight less than 60 lbs. The details of the deduction were also mentioned in the letter dated 20 -3 -63 which are as follows: Names of Government Quantity Amount Presses of cover deducted Kraft paper ________________________________________________________________________ Jaipur 4 lakhs Rs. 7857,27 Udaipur 1 lakh Rs. 414,10 Bikaner 81,000 2087,67 Rajasthan Electric Ptess 440,26 ____________ Rs. 10817,30 ____________ The contractor thereupon instituted two suits, the first one for the recovery of the price of one lakh covers supplied to the Government Press, Jodhpur, during the year 1961 -62 and the second one for the recovery of the amount deducted from the supply made during the year 1962 -63. In the first suit which was instituted by the plaintiff on 21 -11 64 the contractor climed Rs. 8939/ - as the sale -price of one lakh covers supplied to the Government Press, Jodhpur and Rs. 1631 -50. as interest total Rs. 10620.50 P. In the second suit which was instituted on 13 -5 -66 the plaintiff claimed Rs. 10,817.30 P. (the amount deducted out of the supply made during the year 1962 -63 ) and Rs. 1947.12 P by way of interest -total Rs. 12,764 42 P. Various pleas were raised by defendant -State of Rajasthan which contested both the suits,

(3.) I first take up, Appeal No. 83, of 1971, relating to the first suit,