The provisions of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution are mandatory, and the contravention thereof nullifies the contracts and makes them void.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, preferred by the Union of India and the Chief Administrator, dandakaranya Project, is directed against the judgment of the First Addl. District Judge, Raipur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rupees 42,500 as damages for breach of a contract.

( 2 ) THE facts shortly stated are as follows. In 1964, the Dandakaranya Project was in immediate need of about 5,000 wooden poles for laying electric transmission lines to the Mana Camp. The plaintiff had evidently approached the Chief Administrator in that connection. On 14-4-1964, whale Shri F. A. Lahiri, Conservator of Forests, Dandakaranya Project, was camping at Raipur, the plaintiff made a written offer, Ex. D-3, to the Chief Administrator, dandakaranya Project for supply of 2,000 sal Electric Transmission poles at the rate of Rs. 40 per pole F. O. R. Kurud. The Conservator of Forests after obtaining the approval of the Chief administrator by his memo. No. CF-64/1284, dated 18-4-1964, Ex. P-1, placed an order for the supply of the poles as per specifications given. The terms of the order stipulated, among other things, that the plaintiff would supply 1,000 poles by 5-5-1964. By this memo the plaintiff was also required to deposit by way of security Rs. 4,000, i. e. , 5% of the total value of the goods contracted for, and the deposit was, accordingly, made.

( 3 ) BY his telegram dated 6-5-1964, followed by his confirmatory memo. No. III/165/w/cf-64/1598 of even date, Ex. P-7, the Conservator of Forests, however, cancelled the order. This was done at the instance of Secretary to dandakaranya Development Authority, Government of India, Ministry of rehabilitation, since the Government were able to locate alternative sources of supply at much cheaper rates, i. e. , from the Government of Madhya Pradesh, forest Department. The plainiffs case is that the unilateral cancellation of the order constitutes a breach of contract on the part of the Union of India and, therefore, it was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 42,500 as damages for the alleged breach,

( 4 ) THE learned Addl. Dist. Judge has decreed the plaintiff's claim for damages in its entirety with, pendente lite and future interest thereon at 6% per annum till realization against the Union of India the defendant No. 1. As respects the Chief administrator, Dandakaranya Project and Shri F. A, Lahiri, Conservator of forests, Dandakaranya Project, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the learned Judge has held that they were not acting in their personal capacity but by virtue of their office, they could not, therefore, be made liable for the alleged contract.

( 5 ) THE defendant No. 3, Shri F. A. Lahiri, died during the pendency of the appeal, and his name has been struck off from the array of respondents.

( 6 ) THE short question for consideration in the appeal is whether there was a binding, valid and concluded contract between the parties. The Union of India and the Chief Administrator, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2; as well as the defendant No. 3, the Conservator of Forests, in their written statements pleaded, inter alia, that under the law the so-called order was not a contract and was not binding on the Union of India, as it was not placed for and on behalf of the President of India. They further pleaded that the Chief administrator and the Conservator of Forests, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, were not persons authorised to make a contract on behalf of the President of india and, therefore, the alleged contract was not binding or enforceable against the Union of India. That was obviously a plea questioning the validity of the contract because the provisions of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution had not been complied with. The learned Addl. District Judge is, therefore, wrong in observing that there is no such plea in the written statements alleging the noncompliance of Article 299 (1 ). ( 7 ) IN the appeal filed by the Union of India, the principal point taken is that there was no binding contrac