ivil Appeal No 11 89 of 1982
From the Judgment and order dated the 18th December 1981 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No 1 of 1980
S Rangarajan SK Nandy and section Parikh for the Appellant
AK Nag for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI J
In this election appeal the only point for determination is whether at the time when respondent No I filed his nomination paper he held a subsisting contract with the Government for widening the PLP road
While it is true that there was such a contract in existence prior to 30111979 respondent No 1 wrote a 864 letter on 30111979 to the concerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the said contract
The last date for filing nomination was 10121979
It is argued that the contents of the said letter does not have the effect of putting an end to the contract
After going through the contents of the letter it is absolutely clear that the contractor unilaterally put an end to the contract and informed the Department concerned accordingly and also he had resigned from the contractor s list of PWD Manipur
Thus after this letter the contract came to an end by breach and the contract was no longer subsisting
Mr Rangarajan has submitted some very nice and delicate questions for consideration
One of them being that until and unless the letter is accepted by the Authority the contract would continue and thus the respondent would suffer from the disqualification
In our opinion having regard to the contents of the letter it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr Rangarajan that the contract was subsisting
The acceptance of the letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the breach may give rise to a cause on action for damages
No other point is raised before us
We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed without any order as to costs
HL C Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent who was a party to a subsisting contract with the Government for widening or a road wrote a letter to the concerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the said contract
1 he appellant contended that the contents of the letter did not have the effect of putting an end to the contract
Dismissing the appeal  HELD After the letter the contract came to an end by breach and was no longer subsisting
Acceptance of the letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the breach may give rise to an action for damages
864 B C