The court emphasized the importance of following due process of law, including the issuance of work orders and notices before cancellation of agreements and forfeiture of security deposits.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,000/- along with interest against the Municipal Council, Shivpuri on the allegation that the plaintiff" was one of the tenderers to the NIT which was issued for construction of 'V shape drainage in the Municipal Council, Shivpuri at Raghvendra Nagar Colony. The tender of the plaintiff was accepted on 25.6.1991. Thereafter an agreement was executed which is Ex. D/3, on record, on 24.9.1991. Even after the execution of the agreement the defendant did not issue work order. The plaintiff continuously waited for the work order and without granting opportunity of hearing the security amount of the plaintiff of Rs. 1,600/- was deducted and from the final bill of another contract of Ward No. 10, Harijan Basti, Rs. 6,679/- was illegally deducted. The plaintiff came to know that the contract has been given to one of the employees of the Municipal Council, Shivpuri namely, Mantoo Khan in order to give him illegal benefit out of the contract. Thus sum of Rs. 8,279/- has been illegally deducted by the respondent. Notice was served. Suit was filed for recovery of the amount of Rs. 11,000/- along with interest.

3. Municipal Council in the written statement denied the plaint allegations and contended that in spite of the notice the plaintiff did not execute the agreement and on 25.9.1991 the work order was issued but the plaintiff did not execute the work, hence the earnest money was forfeited and the amount was deducted. The order of Administrator which was passed by Administrator on 27.1.1992. Recovery made was tried to be justified on the ground of delay in execution of work and as such the Council has suffered the loss as the contract was given on 25% above CSR from 12.5.1992. However, it was not denied that before forefeiting the security and cancelling the contract notice was not issued to the plaintiff.

4. Trial Court decreed the suit in part and ordered refund to the extent of forfeiture of the security amount of Rs. 1,600/- and amount of Rs. 6,679/- deducted from the final bill of another contract, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the work order was not issued and before forfeiting the amount and deducting an amount of Rs. 6,679/-, no notice was issued to the plaintiff, The recovery made was illegal as work order itself was not issued, hence, the plaintiff could not be faulted for not doing the work. Municipal Council filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which reversed the finding of the Trial Court. In para 13, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of document Exs. P5 and P6 that the work orders were issued to the applicant, hence the plaintiff was responsible for not carrying on the work in spite of issuing of work orders as contained in notice Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/6. It also came to the finding that the plaintiff delayed in execution of the agreement and any how or some how he wanted not to carry out the work assigned to him.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the First Appellate Court this Second Appeal has been filed before this Court which was admitted on 21.6.99 on the following substantial questions of law;

"(1) Whether after recording the finding that plaintiff has executed the agreement with defendant, the lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court?

(2) Whether in the absence of selling aside the finding of Trial Court that the work order was not issued to plaintiff the lower appellate judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court?"

6. The substantial question of Law No. 2 requires reframing hence it is refrained to the following effect-

"whether the finding of the learned Appellate Court that the work order was