The legal principle established is that the prohibition on cow slaughter under the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960, can lead to force majeure and frustration of a contract, justifying the refund of the security deposit.

M. M. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the writ petition was listed for admission, as pleadings are complete, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition prays for quashing the order dated 26-8-2002 under annexure - 12, by which the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Government of Orissa has been terminated. It has been further prayed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the opp. party No. 2 to refund the security deposit made by the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN order to resolve the dispute between the parties, it would be necessary to state the facts in brief. A tender notice for supply of animal feed for the year 2002-03 was published by the director, Nandankanan Zoological Park, mayur Bhawan, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar opp. party No. 2. The petitioner who was one of the bidders having quoted the lowest price, his offer was accepted under the letter dated 19-3-2002 (Annexure-1) and he was asked to make a security deposit of Rs. 2,12,931/-and to execute the agreement. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-in shape of a cheque towards part of the security deposit and was issued with a provisional work order for supply of beef with effect from 8-4-2002 under Annexure-2. The petitioner, accordingly, commenced supply of animal feed and the balance security amount was adjusted from the bill of the petitioner for the first two months. During the course of supply of animal feed, the National Cattle Commissioner made a visit to the State of Orissa on 5-6-2002 and issued a direction to the police authorities of Khandagiri Police Station and made certain raids on slaughter houses at Jadupur and seized some cattle on the allegation of unauthorized slaughtering of cattle. The petitioner was arrested and later on, he was released on bail. He was directed to give an undertaking not to slaughter cows and bulls. Under these circumstances, the petitioner claims that he was unable to supply beef as per the agreement to the opp. party No. 2. He, accordingly, made a representation on 12-6-2002 stating therein that he may be allowed to supply bullocks meat. He also made an application to the Collector seeking permission for slaughtering of cattle at jadupur. By the letter under Annexure-4, the Director opp. party No. 2 intimated the petitioner that he has not supplied beef from 5-6-2002 on wards as per the tender conditions. It was further stated in the said letter that the petitioner was required to abide by the Act and the Rules applicable, i. e. , The orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to explore the possibility of supply of bullock's and buffalo's meat as per the provisions of the act and the Rules and resume supply as per the tender conditions.

( 4 ) IN reply to the above letter, the petitioner by his letter under Annexure-7 intimated the opp. party No. 2 that he has applied to the Collector, Khurda for opening of a slaughter house in village Jadupur on which, the Collector has asked the Executive officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for opening of a slaughter house in the said village as soon as possible to remove the difficulties for supply of animal feed to the animals of Nandankanan Zoo. The petitioner also expressed his consent to supply bullock's and buffalo's meat for the animals and requested for permission to that effect.

( 5 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that instead of acceding to the request of the petitioner, the opp. party No. 2 by his letter dated 17-6-2002 under Annexure-8 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the security deposit made by the petitioner shall not be forfeited to the Government and the excess amount spent due to the departmental purchase shall not be recovered from the bills of the petitioner. The petitioner in response to the said notice filed his show cause as per