NAVIN CHANDRA, J. — 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. The suit was contested by the appellants. They admitted that the contract to collect royalty was auctioned for Rs. 26, 300/- on February 12, 1968. They pleaded that Joint Director (Administration) was authorised to execute the contract on behalf of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan and the defendants were entitled to recover the amount of Rs 11,192.52 P. from the plaintiff which was due under the contract. It was also alleged that previously the plaintiff had instituted Civil Suit No. 32 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge Pratapgarh and the amount is being recovered in accordance with the judgment given in that suit. The plaintiff had filed Civil First Appeal No- 30 of 1974 against the decision in Civi1 Suit No. 32 of 1973 but his appeal was dismissed. Lastly, it was pleaded that the plaintiff cannot file the suit unless he deposited the amount under protest before filing the suit.

4. The trial court framed 4 issues in the suit. It held that the Joint Director Mines Department was not a person authorised by the Governor to execute contract on his behalf on May 9, 1968 and, therefore, the contract Ex. I did not comply with the. requirement of Art. 299 of the Constitution. Since the contract was held to be void, it was further held that the defendants were not entitled to recover the amount in question from the plaintiff. On the basis of these findings the District Judge, Pratapgarh decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the agreement dated May 9, 1968 was void and ineffective and also passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount in question from the plaintiff. The parties were left to bear their own costs. It is against this decree that the defendants have filed the present appeal. The plaintiff have also filed cross-objections against the decree of the trial court challenging the order whereby the parties have been left to bear their own costs of the suit.

5. Mr. P.K Bhansali, learned counsel for the appellants urged that by virtue of a Notification No. F. 3 (4) (14) Ind. (B)/60 dated April 5, 1963 published in Rajasthan Gazette part IV-C dated August 22, 1963, the State Government had made amendment in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959

Click Here to Read the rest of this document