Case: Laliteshwar Prasad Sahi Vs. Bateshwar Prasad And Others

in S. 7(d) and we would be substituting the word "agreement" for it. The Legislature has not chosen to use the word "agreement" but has used the word "contract" Therefore, a mere agreement entered into in contravention of Art. 299 and in fact not ratified cannot be called a "contract" within S. 7 (d) of the Representation of the People Act.11. The question then arises whether the Government did or did not ratify the oral contract entered into between the Executive Engineer and the Patna Flooring Company. In this connection, Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, relies on a number of documents. The first document he refers to is Ex. A-2, dated July 12, 1955, The Sub-Divisional Officer wrote to the Patna Flooring Company as follows:"It is disappointing to note that in spite of my repeated askings you have not submitted your final bill for the mosaic work uptill now. I have been personally explaining to you the whole position and you promised to submit final correct bill on Friday the 8th July, 1955, so that I may ask the contractor Shri G. P. Saxena to pay you off finally and settle your accounts immediately."It appears that something happened between May 25, 1955 and July 12, 1955. According to the respondent, what happened was that Saxena approached the Superintending Engineer and the Superintending Engineer ordered that Saxena would continue to be the contractor as before and no contract would be given to any firm. The respondent stated this in his evidence as R. W. 32. It is objected that this is hearsay and this part of the statement is not admissible. There is some force in this contention and we omit this part of the statement from consideration. But apart from this oral evidence it is quite clear from this letter that something happened, otherwise it was not necessary to use the words "personally explaining to you the whole position" in this letter, and it is not understandable why the Patna Flooring Company was being asked to submit the bill to Saxena. This inference is strengthened by subsequent correspondence. By letter. Dated July 13, 1955. Ex A-3, the S. D. O. acknowledged the receipt of the bill and said that he had sent it to Saxena for making settlement. Exhibit A-17, dated July 20, 1955, is significant. The Sub-Divisional Officer requested Saxena to issue orders to his contractors"to mend and rectify all the cuttings and damages properly and nicely so that the building is in a fit condition of handing over on 1st August, 1955."On July 23, 1955, Saxena endorsed it to the Patna Flooring Company for information and necessary action and with the request to rectify the defects pointed out to the Patna Flooring Company and complete the remaining portions of works and give final polishes thereto by the schedule date. It is not understandable why Saxena was endorsing this for action to Patna Flooring Company unless the Government had chosen not to ratify the contract with the Patna Flooring Company and was still treating him as a contractor. It is also significant that it has not been alleged or proved that any similar letter was written to Patna Flooring Company direct by the S. D. O. On July 21, 1955, a"statement showing upto 21st day of July, 1955, correct amount for the mosaic work done by M/s. Patna Flooring Co. in the Rajendra Surgical Block, Patna Medical College and Hospital Patna - Transactions between Shri G. P. Saxena, Prop. M/s. G. P. Saxena and Co. and M/s. Patna Flooring Co."was made out and this statement of account shows"Bill No. BP / 1833 /45/55, dated 13th July, 1955, through the S. D. O. No. III, Subdivision, Construction Division, Patna - bill for Rs. 14,000-9-0"and Saxena agreed to settle this bill, and a copy of that statement was forwarded to the Executive Engineer for record with reference to the discussion which was held between Saxena and Prasad in his presence and the presence of the S. D. O.This statement shows that the Government Officer was acknowledging that the liability for work done by the Patna Flooring Company would be that of Saxena. If a direct contract between the Patna Flooring Company and the Government still subsisted, all this arrangement seems to be uncalled for.12. Mr. Sarjoo Prasad further points out an important fact that when Saxena submitted the bill to the Government, he not only charged for the work done by the Patna Flooring Company but he charged it at the rates contained in his own contract and not in the quotations, dated April 14, 1955, given by the Patna Flooring company. We agree with him that this is a very significant fact and shows that as far as the Government was concerned, the original contract stood and the Government had not chosen to treat Patna Flooring Company as a contractor, but only as a sub-contractor working under Saxena.13. Mr. Purshottam laid a great deal of stress on the pleadings in the money suit No. 53 of 1959. There is not doubt that the plaint in the money suit filed by the Patna Flooring Company shows that Bateshwar Prasad, plaintiff, was trying to make out that there was a direct contract entered into between the P. W. D. and plaintiff, but even so, the plaint does not make them solely responsible. We have also come to a finding that there was admittedly a contract in the beginning. The fact that the plaint does not allege any subsequent non-acceptance or refusal to ratify by the Government would not estop the respondent from proving in this case that on the material on record it is clear that the Government had not ratified the contract with the respondent, but confirmed the original contract with Saxena. The written statement filed by the Government in the money suit cannot be used to destroy the inference which clearly arises from the documents referred to above. It is doubtful whether the written statement can be taken into consideration at all.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, the Legislature has made no change in this respect for under the old provision it was also necessary for a contract to have subsisted at the relevant time. This Court had in Chatturbhujs case, 1954 SCR 817  : (AIR 1954 SC 236  ), included both executed and executory contracts within the provision of S. 7 (d) and had refused to follow the English rulings to the contrary. We cannot go into the question whether this was rightly done or not for we are bound by that decision Accordingly, following Chatturbhujs case. 1954 SCR 817  : (AIR 1954 SC 236  ), we hold that a contract for the supply of goods or for the execution of any works or the performance of any services undertaken does not cease to subsist only because the goods had been supplied or work had been executed or services performed. It continues to subsist till payment is made and the contract is fully discharged by performance on bothare inclined to agree with Mr. Purshottam that the correspondence in this group clearly discloses an agreement for the execution of work between the Executive Engineer and the Patna Flooring Company, and the Election Tribunal was quite right in coming to this conclusion. But we may say that the Election Tribunal was not right in holding that Cl. 3 (c) got rid of Art. 299 of the Constitution. Any work which is given in exercise of the powers under Cl. 3 (c) has also to comply with the provisions of Art. 299 of the Constitution.It seems to us that the decision in. Chatturbhujs case, 1954 SCR 817  : (AIR 1954 SC 236  ), cannot be extended to cover a case where the Government has in fact not ratified the contract. If we were to hold that this type of transaction is covered then we would be giving no effect to the word "contract" in S. 7(d) and we would be substituting the word "agreement" for it. The Legislature has not chosen to use the word "agreement" but has used the word "contract" Therefore, a mere agreement entered into in contravention of Art. 299 and in fact not ratified cannot be called a "contract" within S. 7 (d) of the Representation of the Peopleis not doubt that the plaint in the money suit filed by the Patna Flooring Company shows that Bateshwar Prasad, plaintiff, was trying to make out that there was a direct contract entered into between the P. W. D. and plaintiff, but even so, the plaint does not make them solely responsible. We have also come to a finding that there was admittedly a contract in the beginning. The fact that the plaint does not allege any subsequent non-acceptance or refusal to ratify by the Government would not estop the respondent from proving in this case that on the material on record it is clear that the Government had not ratified the contract with the respondent, but confirmed the original contract with Saxena. The written statement filed by the Government in the money suit cannot be used to destroy the inference which clearly arises from the documents referred to above. It is doubtful whether the written statement can be taken into consideration at all.