BHAVE, J. ( 1 ) THE trial Court has decreed the plaintiffs claim for refund of Rs. 12,950/- by the defendant State with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation of the amount. The trial Court has further Issued an injunction restraining the defendant State and its officers and employees from recovering Rs. 23,500/-from the plaintiffs. Costs have also been awarded to the plaintiffs. The state has therefore, preferred this first appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22-8-1961 Sargadi Coupe No. 1 of pratappur Range of North Surguia Forest Division was put to public auction and the highest bid of 'the plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 51,500/- was accepted. Accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 deposited one-fourth amount of the bid and also signed the contract deed. The auction was subject to the approval of the Chief Conservator of forests, A few days after the date of auction, it is alleged that the plaintiff discovered that he had given the bid on misapprehension of facts, namely, that though, in fact. 115 trees of the girth of 37 inches to 48 Inches wera shown in the list of various trees to be included fox auction in that Coupe, the plaintiff No. 1 was misled In thinking that they were 1115 In number. It was also alleged that as there was no Proper arrangement of loudspeaker, though the upset price was declared as Rs. 14,000/-', the plaintiff and other bidders had taken it to be 'rs. 40,000/-'. That was the reason why the bid had gone so high. On discovering these mistakes the plaintiff addressed letters dated 28-9-1961 (Ex. P-7) to the conservator of Forests, the Divisional Forests Officer and the Minister of Forests. Bhopal, bringing to their notice the misapprehension under which the bid was offered by him and requesting the authorities that the auction in question may not be sanctioned and the amount deposited by him may be refunded. Similar letter (Ex. P-8) was sent by the plaintiff to the Chief Conservator of Forests. Madhya pradesh, the sanctioning authority, on 11-9-1961, with a request that the sum deposited by him be refunded to him and re-auction of the Coupe be held. In spite of these letters, the Chief Conservator of Forests signed the contract deed on 2911-1961 as is clear from Ex. D-3 and a demand was made against the plaintiff for deposit of the other instalments that had become due. As the plaintiff did not deposit the balance of 'the amount, the so-called contract was cancelled and in terms of the contract the Coupe was ordered to be re-auctioned. The re-auction took place on 16-12-1963 for Rs. 15,000/. The amount of Rs. 12,950/- was directed to be forfeited and after adjusting Rs. 15,000/-against the original bid a demand for Rs. 23,500/- was raised against the plaintiff. The plaintiff No. 2 had also signed the surety-form on the date the auction took place and was also proceeded against for recovery of the said amount. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs filed 'the suit with a prayer that the defendant State' be directed to refund Rs. 12,950/-with interest and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant State and its officers from recovering the amount of Rs. 23,500/ -.

( 3 ) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the State it was alleged that there was no scope for any misapprehension of facts: as such, there was no question of cancelling the bid of the plaintiff and the Chief Conservator of Forests was within his rights in enforcing the contract. In terms of the contract the Chief Conservator of Forests was also within his rights in cancelling it in re-auctioning the Coupe and in demanding the balance of Rs. 23,500/- and in forfeiting the amount already paid by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that there was no scope for misapprehension of facts. The plaintiffs' suit was, however, decreed on the ground that it was not shown that the chief Conservator of Forests had any authority to sign the contract on behalf of and in the name of the Go

Click Here to Read the rest of this document