Back
1979 Supreme(All) 43
Allahbad High Court
H.N.SETH,S.J.HYDER
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Mumtaz Hussain - Respondent
Decided On : 01/15/1979
Standing Counsel, for Petitioner.
A contract for the sale of goods is void and unenforceable if it does not comply with the requirements of Art.299 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONTRACT - SALE OF GOODS - TREES - AUCTION SALE - VALIDITY - COMPLIANCE WITH ART.299 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930, SS. 4, 70 - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872, SS. 2(e), 2(g), 2(h), 70 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART.299.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Mumtaz Hussain Contractor, filed a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh for compensation for the wrongful detention of timber from 171 Shisham trees that he claimed to have purchased in an auction sale conducted by the Agricultural Officer, Co-operative Farm, Rudrapur. The plaintiff alleged that the Forest and Colonization Departments illegally seized the timber and prevented him from exporting it, causing him a loss of Rs. 40,000. The State contested the suit, claiming that only 171 trees had been sold to the plaintiff and that he had no right to fell and carry away all the Shisham trees in the area. The State also claimed that the contract was hit by Art.299 of the Constitution and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that there were only 171 Shisham trees standing in the area between rivers Dhimri and Baur and that all those trees had been sold to the plaintiff on 25-5-52. It held that the Forest and Colonization Departments obstructed the plaintiff in working out his contract and that the Colonization Department was not justified in refusing to extend the period as prayed for by the plaintiff. The trial court also found that the plaintiff had felled all the 171 trees of Shisham which yielded timber measuring 11,283 cubic feet and 30 stacks of fuel wood. From out of this wood the plaintiff succeeded in exporting only 1837 cubic feet of timber. 9446 cubic feet of timber and 30 stacks of fuel wood remained at the spot which the plaintiff was not allowed to remove. The trial court repelled the claim that the contract in question was hit by Art.299 of the Constitution and held that in any case the plaintiff was, in view of the provisions of S.70 of the Indian Contract Act, entitled to recover compensation from the defendant.
Issues: 1. Whether the contract between the plaintiff and the State of Uttar Pradesh for the sale of 171 Shisham trees was valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the property in the trees had passed to the plaintiff. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the wrongful detention of the timber.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contract between the plaintiff and the State of Uttar Pradesh for the sale of 171 Shisham trees was not valid and enforceable because it did not comply with the requirements of Art.299 of the Constitution. Art.299 requires that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President, or by the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and shall be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorize. In the instant case, the contract was not expressed to be made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and was not executed on his behalf by a person authorized by him. Therefore, the contract was void and unenforceable. 2. The court held that the property in the trees had not passed to the plaintiff because the contract was void and unenforceable. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the wrongful detention of the timber because he had not become the owner of the trees and therefore had no right to possess the timber.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trial court was set aside. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
H. N. SETH, J. :- The first appeal by defendant State of U.P. is directed against the judgement of the Additional Civil Judge, Nainital dated 30-4-1963 decreeing the suit filed by Sri Mumtaz Hussain Contractor for a sum of Rs. 31,338/-.
2. The plaintiff Mumtaz Hussain filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal in the court of the Civil Judge, Nainital alleging that he had purchased the entire Shisham trees in the area between rivers Dhimri and Baur which are sold to him under an auction sale conducted by the Agricultural Officer, Co-operative Farm, Rudrapur under the Colonization Scheme on 25-5-1952 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. In due course he deposited the entire sale consideration and started cutting and felling the Shisham trees and was expecting to complete the work before 30-11-1952. Official the Forest Department, however, illegally and without authority started interfering with the plaintiffs work and finally stopped him from exporting timber and illegally seized all the timber cut by him. He, thereupon made representation to the Colonization Department. But to no effect. Even his prayer for extension of time to complete the work was unreasonably refused by the Colonization Department. According to the plaintiff he had collected 10,000 cubic feet of Shisham wood and thirty chattas of feel wood which had been illegally detained by the Forest and Colonization Department of the State. As a consequence thereof, the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 40,000/-. He, therefore, served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which did not, yield any result. He had no option but to file the present suit claiming a decree for Rs. 40,000/-.
3. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that only 31 Shisham trees near village Sardarnagar, 10 Shisham trees near village Sakania, 5 Shisham trees near village Ahmednagar and 125 Shisham trees in the area from Baur Bridge up to Behra-Wazir (Total 171 trees) had been sold to the plaintiff on 25th of May, 1952. The plaintiff did not have any right to fell and carry away all the Shisham trees which were many more in number in the aforesaid area and he was also to observe the Rules and Regulations regarding the export of forest wood. The plaintiff started cutting and felling Shisham trees indiscriminately and stealthily in the area not covered by his contract. He was required by the Forest Department to stop doing so. The stacks of wood belonging to the plaintiff was taken possession of either by the Forest Department or by the Colonization Department and that the material which was earlier seized for want of proper Rawannas and property mark was subsequently released to the plaintiff, who had removed the same. In case any part of timber had been left behind, it was the responsibility of the plaintiff himself and the defendant is not liable on that account. The defendant further claimed that the suit was barred by time and the notice under Section 80 of the Civil P.C. was improper and illegal. They further claimed that as the parties did not enter into a contract in the manner provided in Art.299 of the Constitution no valid contract with regard to sale of 171 Shisham trees came into existence. Accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages in respect thereof.
4. After going through the evidence produced in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that there were only 171 Shisham trees standing in the area situate between river Dhimri and Baur and that all those Shisham trees had been sold to the plaintiff on 25-5-52. It held that the Forest and the Colonization Departments obstructed the plaintiff in working out his contract and the Colonization Department was not justified in refusing to extend the period as prayed for by the plaintiff. Refusal by the Colonization Department to extend the period appeared to be mala fide. It also found that the plaintiff had felled all the 171 trees of Shisham which yielded timber measuring 11,283 cubic feet
