STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the defendants against the decree of the District Judge, Pratapgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) dated July 21, 1977 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed against the appellants.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are that on April 26, 1976 respondent Bhanwar Lal instituted Civil Suit No. 71 of 1976 against the appellants with the averments that the right to collect royalty from certain mines of Menpura, Footbad and Jai Magri in District Chittorgarh was auctioned by the Mines Department of the State of Rajasthan. The highest bid was of Rs. 26, 300/- per annum. In pursuance of this auction a contract was executed on May 9, 1968 by the Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the Joint Director of Mines and Geology was not the person authorised to execute a contract on behalf of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, this contract was void. However, in pursuance of this contract, the defendants were bent upon to recover the contract amount from the plaintiff and had issued a notice on March 10, 1976 to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,192. 52 P. The plaintiff alleged that since no contract was executed in accordance with the provisions of Art. 299 of the Constitution, the defendants were not entitled to recover the amount. A notice under section 80 C. P. C. was served but with no effect. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the contract dated May 9, 1968 was void and ineffective and he further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from recovering any amount from the plaintiff under the said agreement.

(3.) SIMILAR question had come before this Court in the case of Shrinarain Vs. Union of India (1) and in Bharat Bhusan Vs. State of Rajasthan (2 ). It was laid down in Bharat Bhusan's case that it was not disputed by the parties in that case that the lease agreement was signed by the Joint Director of Mines and Geology on behalf of the Governor of the State. His Lordship V. P. Tyagi J. , referred to the decision in Shri Narain's case (supra) wherein it had been held that the Joint Director was not authorised by the Governor to sign the agreement on his behalf and, therefore, any agreement signed by the Joint Director cannot be said to a valid agreement as the requirements of Art. 299 of the Constitution had not been complied with in as much as the person who was not authorised by the Governor put his signatures on the agreement which did not give any validity to the agreement in the eyes of law. His Lordship referred to the Notification dated January 29, 1972 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 3, 1972 (Extraordinary) whereby the joint Director had been empowered to execute lease and other agreement under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, but in that case the agreement had been executed much before that date. It is thus clear that the royalty collection contract Ex. 1 in the present case was not executed by a person authorised by the Governor to execute it. The trial court, therefore, rightly found that the contract dated May 9, 1968 was void on the ground that it was not executed on behalf of the Governor by an authorised person under Art. 299 of the Constitution and, therefore, it was not a valid contract. Thus issue No. 3 was rightly decided in favour of the plaintiffs.