(2) These three appeals arise out of the decrees passed in three suits instituted by the respondent No. 1 Pannalal Desraj against the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, Shri G. K. Tiwari, who was Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, at the relevant time, and also against certain other parlies. In all these suits the claim of the respondent No. 1 was for damages for breach of certain contracts entered into by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, with him. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 105 of 1952 arises, the contract was for making certain extensions in the Bai Gangabai Memorial Hospital at Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 108 of 1952 arises, the contract was for remodelling the Kunwar Tilaksingh Civil Hospital, Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 107 of 1952 arises, the contract was for the construction of a new Hospital to be known as Twynam Hospital, Tumsar.

(3) Various defences were raised by the appellant and the various defendants to the suits on the basis of which each defendant disputed his liability. The trial Court dismissed the suits against all the defendants except the present appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is now represented before us by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganization Act by the State of Bombay. The main contention raised on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh was that none of the contracts entered into by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, was binding on it because the Deputy Commissioner was not authorised to enter into those contracts. This defence as well as some other defences raised on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh were negatived by the learned trial Judge and the suits were decreed against the State of Madhya Pradesh alone. In the appeals various grounds have been taken on behalf of the appellant but we need not concern ourselves with all those grounds except the one to which we have already adverted, that is that none of the contracts was entered into on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh and as such the State, of Madhya Pradesh was not bound by any of the contracts.

(4) The contracts on the basis of which the suits out of which First Appeals Nos. 105 of 1952 and 106 of 1952 arise, were entered into on forms prescribed for building contracts in the Public Works Department Manual. Those forms have been corrected at several places, though we must confess that the corrections have not been very carefully carried out. For entering into the contract with which we are concerned in First Appeal No. 107 of 1952, however, a P.W.D. Form was not used but an independent contract had been drawn up.

(5) In the P.W.D. Form used for entering into the contract out of which First Appeal No. 105 of 1952 arises most of the references to the Government of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Works Department have been scored out and in their places Deputy Commissioner Bhandara is mentioned. The Form used appears to be an obsolete one because at the end it contains the following :

"The above tender is hereby accepted by me on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council."

However, the words "on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council" have been scored out. The letters "D. C." have been substituted for the

"Sub-Divisional Officer"

words Divisional O er wherever they occur

in the Form. At two places however the reference to the Government has not been scored out. These references occur towards the end of the contract Form where it is said :

"Should this tender be accepted I/we hereby agree to abide by and fulfil all the terms and provisions of the said conditions of contract annexed hereto so far as applicable or in default thereof to forfeit and pay to the D. C. or his successors in office the sums of money mentioned in the said conditions. The sum of Rs,* is herewith forwarded in currency notes as earnest money, the full value of which is to be absolutely forfeited to the said Secretary of State or his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document