State authorities are liable for breach of contract when failing to fulfill terms, allowing for the contractor to claim due payments and interest, subject to evidentiary support and stipulations.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 read with Section 41 of the CPC at the instance of the appellants – State Authorities being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad (herein after referred to as “the trial court”) in Special Civil Suit No. 160 of 1991, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the suit and directed the appellants to pay Rs.6,73,970/- plus Rs.25,048/- interest total amount Rs.6,99,018/- to the respondent herein and also directed to pay 12% interest on Rs.6,73,970/- from the date of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.

2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :-

2.1 That, the respondent was an Engineer and Contractor carries on their business activities in the name and style of M/s Gayatri Construction Co. and they were registered with the Public Works Department and were also approved by various other departments of the State. That, the Executive Engineer, Navsari (R&B) Division, appellant herein had invited the tenders publicly for the work of constructing B.C.K. Sector, Regional School at Dharampur. That, the respondent had filled the tender and submitted the same to the appellant Department. That, the tender of the respondent was accepted by the Department and on acceptance of the tender the respondent had paid security deposit and entered into an agreement bearing Agreement No. B-2/24 of 1987-88 and as per the said agreement, the work was required to be commenced according to the work order issued on the respondent, from 15.09.1987, the said work was required to be completed on or before 30.09.1989, and the said work was required to be carried out to the tune of Rs. 20,37,018-25. That, the present contract created mutual bilateral reciprocal contractual obligations, inasmuch as, certain reciprocal contractual obligations were required to be performed first by the appellant Department, and on its performance, the respondent was required to perform his part of the contractual obligations and as the appellant Department failed to perform their part of the contractual obligations, the above said work could not be completed within its stipulated time and the reasons for the non-completion of the said work within its stipulated time period, are as under:

2.1 That, as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the appellant Department was required to give item-wise programme for the work to be executed, but no item-wise programme was ever furnished by the appellant - Department. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the appellant - Department was required to supply the detailed working drawings, together with work order but failed to do so and thereby the appellant - Department had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. That, as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the appellant - Department was required to give the line out for executing the above said work immediately on issuance of the work order but, the appellant had given line out after a month. That, the appellant did not make the payment of the extra work done and thus, due to non-payment of the work done also thereby committed breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. That, as per the Schedule A the appellant was required to supply the respondent with the cement for the work to be executed, but no cement was made available to the respondent by the Department. Therefore, due to these reasons the work could not be completed within stipulated time. That, the contract in question was not extended by the appellant on account of non-payment of the due and legiti