GHASI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge dated October 27, 1970.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff -appellant has limited his argument only to one point, namely, that his client was entitled to get 7% over and above the rate quoted by him for using the river shingle chips and, therefore, we propose to discuss this question alone.

(3.) THESE circumstances raise a question whether the proposal made by the appellant for the use of river shingle chips in place of hands broken chips required to be sanctioned by the Super intending Engineer and whether the Superintending Engineer while exercising his authority under the schedule of powers accepted the terms offered by the appellant to pay over and above the quoted rates 7% extra. It is not disputed that the Superintending Engineer had accepted in or. unequivocal term the use of the river shoe chips and he also agreed to pay to the appellant Rs. 20/ - per 100 cubit feet plus the actual carriage charges, but he did not maker it on in his letter Ex. 4 any thing about the accept nee of the offer made b. the appellant for the payment of 7% extra over the said charges The question is whether the silence on the part of the Superintending Engineer can be said to be talent as the acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff -appellant. Lea had counsel for the appellant could not show any law on the point whether the term which was offered and is partly accepted and no specific acceptance is given for the rest, can be said to have accepted in toto. Silence on the part of the Superintending Engineer cannot by taken as his acceptance. The learned Single judge has dealt with this question elaborately in his judgment and we fid that the reasoning given by him for rejecting the appellant's appeal for the grant of 7% above the price quoted by him, cannot be said to be erroneous.