Subba Rao, J.-The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the suit contract is valid, and whether it complies with the provisions of section 175 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

The defendant is a merchant carrying on business in Coimbatore. The Government required groundnut oil for use in the Government Oil Factory at Calicut. The superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute wrote Ex. P-1 dated 12th May, 1942, to the defendant asking him to quote his lowest rate for supplying 40 tons of expeller quality groundnut oil for prompt supply. The defendant by his letter, Ex. P-2 dated 15th May, 1942, offered to supply 40 tons of expeller groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 369 per nett ton of 2,240 lbs., if barrels were supplied by the Superintendent. He agreed to deliver the said oil within three months after acceptance. The defendant received the letter, Ex. P-9, dated 21st May, 1942, from the Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute, wherein the latter stated that he tested the sample of oil received and accepted the offer of the defendant. He also informed the defendant that the oil agreed to be delivered should be sent within three months, and that the bulk supplied should be exactly similar to the sample. On 21st May, 1942, the Superintendent again wrote a letter to the defendant asking him to supply the groundnut oil, particulars whereof were given in that letter, within three months as agreed upon between the parties. For one reason or other — it is not necessary to go into that question — the defendant did not supply the oil agreed upon between the parties within the time prescribed.

The Government purchased the oil from a third party, and filed the suit for recovery of damages, the difference between the price at which the defendant agreed to sell and the price for which they later on purchased from the third party. The defendant inter alia contested the suit on the ground that the contract which afforded the cause of action to the plaintiff was not valid, as it did not comply with the provisions of section 175 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the contract was valid, and that it also complied with the provisions of section 175, as the Superintendent, who called for the tender and accepted it took the sanction of the Director of Industries.

Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, reads as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal Railway Authority, all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation or of a Province shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General, or by the Governor of the Province, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that authority shall be executed on behalf of the Governor-General or Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise.”

It is not disputed that the Director of Industries was authorised by the Government to enter into a contract on its behalf. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions before us: (1) that under section 175, sub-section (3) the contract between the Government and the other party must be embodied in a formal document, and (2) that even though the contract with the Government might be entered into by correspondence, the correspondence must show ex facie that the contract was entered into by the Government or the person authorised by the Government to enter into the contract.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a long list of decisions in support of his contention. Though the result of those decisions are different, the principles laid down therein will equally apply to the present case. Municipal Corporation, Bombay v. Secretary of State for India1turns upon the construction of section 30 of the Government of India Act of 1919. The provisions of section 30 are similar in effect to that of section 175 of the Government of In