Judgment

GROVER, J.: This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court decreeing the suit filed by the respondent company for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,000/on account of rent or damages in respect of storage charges for 4,000/maunds of potatoes for which space had been reserved in the cold storage by the company.

2. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh and impleaded three other defendants who were, at the material time, in the service of the State. Defendant No. 3 was a Horticulturist in the Department of Agriculture. He negotiated with the plaintiff for storing Government potatoes in a cold storage which belonged to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the Government potatoes would be sent for storage and the plaintiff would be entitled to charge at a certain rate per maund. It was understood that 4,000 maunds of potatoes would be sent for storage. However, no potatoes were sent although the plaintiff had reserved the requisite space in the storage which remaind unoccupied during the season. It appears that defendant No. 3 A. P. Gupta was acting on behalf of Srivastava defendant No. 2 who was Deputy Director, Horticulture. Both these defendants were acting upon instructions from Sri Ram Krishna defendant No. 4 who was Assistant Development Commissioner, Planning, Lucknow. The suit was therefore filed against the State and the other three defendants to recover the storage charges amounting to Rs. 21,000/-.

3. Although all the defendants raised a common plea that there was no contract between the parties for the storage of potatoes and that the entire matter remained at the stage of negotiations the real plea taken on behalf of the State was that no contract had been entered into in accordance with Article 299 (1) of the Constitution. The trial court upheld the objection of the State and dismissed the suit against it but it held the other defendants jointly liable for the storage charges. The High Court on appeal by the defendants set aside the decree against defendants Nos. 2 and 4 but maintained it against defendant No. 3. No appeal, however, was filed by the plaintiff against the State. As the judgment of the High Court proceeded mainly on the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 230 of the Contract Act the whole of that section may be set out:

S. 230. "In the absence of any contract to that effect an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them.

Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases:

(1) Where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad;

(2)where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal;

(3) where the principal though disclosed, cannot be sued."

According to the High Court the entire transaction had been entered into by the defendant on behalf of the Government. As the State Government was not liable by virtue of Art. 299 of the Constitution S. 230 (3) would be applicable and defendant No. 3, who was apparently acting as an agent of the State Government, would become personally liable under the contract. Certain observations in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram, 1954 SCR 817 appear to lend support to this view. In that case also no formal contract had been entered into as required by Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution. The court observed that the Chairman of the Board of Administration had acted on behalf of the Union Government and his authority to contract in that capacity had not been questioned. Both sides acted in the belief and on the assumption that the goods were intended for Government purposes. The only flaw was that the contracts were not in proper form and because of this technical difficulty the principal could not have been sued. But that was just the kind of case that S. 230 (3) of the Indian Contract Act was designed to meet. The Government might not be bound by the c