Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : A.P.Sen,M.L.Jain
KIRORILAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondent
Civil First Appeal 24 Of 1966
Decided On : 11/04/1976
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONTRACT - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 299 (1) - MINING LEASE - EXECUTION - AUTHORISED PERSON - QUANTUM MERUIT - SECTION 70 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - APPLICABILITY - OFFER OF SETTLEMENT - ACCEPTANCE - DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to have been granted a mining lease for the extraction of sand from Rameshwar Ghat, sued the State Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for recovery of the price of sand allegedly supplied to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The mining lease was granted by the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh had started removing sand from Rameshwar Ghat before the grant of the mining lease to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The mining lease granted to the plaintiff was not valid and binding, being not in conformity with the requirements of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution as well as against the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955. The Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, was not a person authorised to enter into such a contract. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the price of sand extracted from the leased area on the basis of quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Contract Act, as he had not done anything for either the State Government of Rajasthan or the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The offer of settlement made by the Chief Engineer, Chambal Hydel and Irrigation Scheme, Madhya Pradesh, was not accepted by the plaintiff, and hence he was not entitled to a decree for Rs. 14,000/- on that basis.
Issues: 1. Whether the mining lease granted to the plaintiff was valid and binding? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the price of sand extracted from the leased area on the basis of quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Contract Act? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 14,000/- as per the terms of the offer made by the Chief Engineer, Chambal Hydel and Irrigation Scheme, Madhya Pradesh?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The mining lease granted to the plaintiff was not valid and binding, as it was not executed by a person duly authorised by the Governor of Rajasthan, as required by Article 299 (1) of the Constitution. The Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, was not a person authorised to enter into such a contract. 2. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the price of sand extracted from the leased area on the basis of quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Contract Act, as he had not done anything for either the State Government of Rajasthan or the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The mere fact that the plaintiff was refrained from interfering with the agents of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh from carrying sand from the area did not amount to the doing of a positive act giving rise to a claim for compensation. 3. The offer of settlement made by the Chief Engineer, Chambal Hydel and Irrigation Scheme, Madhya Pradesh, was not accepted by the plaintiff, and hence he was not entitled to a decree for Rs. 14,000/- on that basis.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
SEN, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur dated 15th September, 1965, disallowing his claim against State Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for recovery of Rs. 1,73,165/- as price of 20,80,000 c. ft. sand alleged to have been supplied to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh.
( 2 ) THREE questions arise for consideration in the appeal, The first is, whether the mining lease dated 20-3-1957, Ex. 6, executed by the Mining Engineer, mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the extraction of sand (Bajri) from Rameshwar Ghat, was a contract in conformity with Article 299 (1) of the Constitution and, therefore, a valid and binding contract came into existence; secondly, if the mining lease was not valid or enforceable on the ground of non-compliance of Article 299 (1) the Mining engineer was not a person duly authorised to enter into a contract in the name of the Governor, the plaintiff was still entitled to recover the price of 20,80,000 c. ft. sand extracted from the leased area, on the basis of quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Contract Act; and thirdly, whether, in any event, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 14,000/-as per the terms of the offer made by the Chief Engineer, Chambal Hydel and Irrigation Scheme, Madhya pradesh by his letter dated 28-2-1959, Ex. 29.
( 3 ) THE facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated. The Chambal hydel Project was a joint venture of the State Government of Rajasthan and madhya Pradesh. For the construction of the project, the State Government of madhya Pradesh required huge amount of sand. The only source of supply was rameshwar Ghat of Chambal river in Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. The place was inaccessible from the Rajasthan side because of sand dunes and ravines and it was situate on the opposite bank of the Chambal river and the river could only be crossed by boats. The State Government of Madhya pradesh, therefore, constructed a temporary bridge at a cost of Rs. 15,000/from the Madhya Pradesh side up to the sand area, for the transport of the sand from Rameshwar Ghat to the Main Canal. For this purpose, it also laid a fair-weather macadam road of 7 1/2 miles in length to Main Canal chainage 2360 in mile 48 and the Executive Engineer, Canal Construction, Dn. 2, sheopur Kalan invited tenders for the transport of sand.
( 4 ) THE Superintending Engineer, Chambal Canal Circle, Sheopur Kalan, Madhya pradesh by letter dated 13-4-1957 addressed to the Director of Mines and geology, Rajasthan, Ex. 74, mentioning that the Chief Engineer, Chambal Hydel and Irrigation Scheme, Madhya Pradesh was requested by his letter dated 2-21957 to approach the State Government of Rajasthan for exemption from payment of royalty on sand as it was required for Government work. The executive Engineer, Canal Construction Division, Sheopur Kalan similarly addressed a letter dated 11-4-1957, Ex. 75, to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, with copy to the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, stating that the matter regarding exemption of royalty on sands for works on Chambal Hydel project has been referred to the higher authority. On the same day, he addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, Ohambal Hydel Irrigation Scheme, madhya Pradesh stating that the Government had been moved for exemption of royalty.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff had, along with others, submitted a tender for the same but hig tender was not accepted. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh started removing the sand in March 1957. The plaintiff suppressed the fact and addressed a letter dated 2-3-1957 to the Mining Engineer, Jaipur making an offer of Rs. 500/- per year for the direct working of the quarry Chambal sand at rameshwar Ghat. In the application dated 20-3-1957, neither the area nor its location was mentioned. The mining lease, Ex. 6, does not contain any description of the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
