A binding contract by tender and acceptance can come into existence if the acceptance is by a person duly authorised in this behalf by the Governor/President of India and it has to be expressed to be made in the name of President of India or Governor of the State.

R.S.MONGIA, J.

1. This revision petition has been placed before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge. Briefly the facts of the case are that a dispute having arisen between the parties i.e. M/s. Mittal Pipe Manufacturing Company (Petitioner) and State of Haryana (Respondent), the same was referred for arbitration to an arbitrator namely Shri R. K. Garg, Superintending Engineer, Haryana P.W.D. (B and R). The said arbitrator made a reference to the Court of learned Sub Judge, Jind vide his letter dated 6/05/1987 and sought an opinion on the following questions :-

1) Whether a valid agreement exists between the parties to the dispute, particularly when the contractor has submitted his tender on form No. Stereo B and R 30 and Arbitration Clause 13-A appears on the tender form where the contractor has given his offer? 2) Whether the Arbitrator has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute?

2 Learned Sr. Sub Judge found that there was no valid agreement between the parties, inter alia, on the ground that the tender was not signed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the Governor and further there was no separate agreement of arbitration and further in order to have valid arbitration agreement binding between the parties, the same should have been signed by both the parties . According to the trial Court, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties.

3. The appellate Court, however, reversed the findings. It found that a duly signed tender in Form No. Stereo B and R 30 with arbitration clause 13-A, for reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator was submitted by the contractor (Petitioner). It was accepted on behalf of the Governor of the State subject to the conditions in the tender form. Thus, according to the appellate Court, though there was no separate agreement but a binding contract had come into being, when the tender was accepted on behalf of the Governor of the State of Haryana. There was a valid and binding agreement between the parties for reference to arbitration. It was also noticed that there was no objection on behalf of the petitioner that the tender had not been accepted by an authorised person. The petitioner dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate Court came up in the present revision petition.

4. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner impugned the order of the appellate Court solely on the ground that there was no agreement between the parties complying with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The finding of fact, to the effect that a duly signed tender with an arbitration clause and other terms and conditions, was submitted by the contractor (Petitioner) and was accepted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the Governor was not challenged. Primary reliance was placed on a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in State of Haryana V/s. M/s. O. P. Singhal and Co., AIR 1984 Punj and Har 358, in which it was held that by merely submission of the tender and acceptance thereof, no binding contract as envisaged by Article 299 of the Constitution of India, can come into existence. In the reference order, Ld. single Judge has noticed a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. N. K. Private Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 915, wherein it was held that a binding contract by tender and acceptance can come into existence if the acceptance is by a person duly authorised in this behalf by the Governor of the State or by the President of India, as the case may be. The said Supreme Court judgment was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge in M/s. O. P. Singhals case supra. After noticing few other authorities, learned single Judge was of the view that various questions are involved in this case which require determination by a larger Bench and that is how the matter has been placed before us.

5. In the reference order, learned single Judge has formulated the questio