STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus MIS. RUCHI PRINTERS
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 538, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 538 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
MIS. RUCHI PRINTERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 48 I 7 of20 I 6) 
MAY05,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Contractual dispute - Inte1ference with - Print order placed 
by State for printing booklets - Booklets to be supplied by pri11ter 
on time bound basis - Non-co111pletio11 of work withi11 the time li111it 
- Extension of time and stated that 110 books would be accepted 
after the extended time - Challenged to, by the printer - High Court 
directing to the State to accept the supply of booklets from the printer 
and make pay111ent accordingly - Writ appeal by State - Dis111issal 
of - On appeal, held: Time was the essence of contract and the 
printing of booklets was to be completed at the earliest - In case 
any work remains incomplete, the work order was ro be treated as 
cancelled - It was made clear that no booklets were to be received 
after the extended ti111e - Thus, there was no reason for printers to 
print any booklets after cancellation of order and printing thereafte1; 
was wholly unauthorized - Thus, lifter the order for printing booklets 
stood cancelled on failure to supply ll'ithin the stipulated period, 
the contract ca111e to an end, there was no reason for the printers to 
print the booklets - The co111111u11ication asking the printer to print 
and supply the booklets, did not confer on them a right to print 
books ajier the extended date - Thus, the High Court erred in the
facts of the case to inte1fere in contractual matter and by granting 
the relief - Payment to be made to the printers for booklets supplied 
till the extended date. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4817 
of20l6. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2012 of the High Court 
G 
of Madhya Pradesh principal scat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1020 
of2009. 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 4818 and 4819 of2016. 
H 
C. D. Singh, Adv. for the Appellants. 
538
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MIS. RUCH! 
539 
PRINTERS 
G. S. Ahluwalia, Dinesh C. Pandey, Ms. Jyoti Pandey, Tushar 
A 
Sharma, Palash S., Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by 
ARUN MISiffiA, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The State has preferred the appeal as against the judgment 
and order passed by the High Court of M.P. in the writ appeal and the 
writ petitions decided by a common order dated 4. 9.2012 dismissing the 
writ appeal and allowing the petitions, thereby directing the State 
Government to accept all materials which was ready for delivery on 
22.5.2008 and quashing order dated 30.1.2009 cancelling the 
communication dated 22.5.2008. Fm1her direction has been issued to 
make payment to the printers as per the terms and conditions of the 
order dated 16.1.2008 read with order dated 25.2.2008. 
3. Facts in short referred to from SLP [CJ No.3273012013 -
State ofM.P. & Ors. v. Mis. Ruchi Printers indicate that the State Printing 
& Writing Articles Depa11ment of Madhya Pradesh through its Controller, 
invited quotations vide letter dated 2.1.2008 for printing Bhu-Adhikar 
and Rin Pustikas. On 16.1.2008 printing order was placed with Mis. 
Ruchi Printers for supply of 37,07,726 copies of Bhu-Adhikar and Rin 
Pustika. At least half of the booklets were to be supplied in the first lot 
till 8.2.2008 and the rest were to be supplied before 25.2.2008. On 
25.2.2008 the Deputy Controller wrote a letter on behalf of the Controller 
while
approving the modified booklet. The printers were asked to ensure 
the supply after printing the allotted work. On 28.3 .2008 another letter 
was written that the time limit fixed was already over so· rest of the 
work may be completed till 31.3 .2008. After 31.3 .2008 no booklets shall 
be accepted. The decision dated 28.3.2008 was questioned by filing writ 
petitions. Said writ petition filed by Mis. Ruchi Printers had been allowed 
by Single Bench vi de common judgment and order dated 6.11.2008. State 
was directed to accept the supply of I 0.75 lakhs of Rin Pustikas from 
Mis. Ruchi Printers and to make payment in accordance with the terms 
and conditions of the contract. In another W.P. No. I 031912008 decided 
by same order, the single Bench asked the petitioner to approach the 
State Government and the Government to consider the claim in respect 
of the materials already supplied and to settle the claim if not already 
settled. No other relief was given. 
4. Aggrieved by the order passed in the case of Ruchi Printers, 
State preferred a writ appeal which was heard and decided with writ 
petitions by impugned common order. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
540 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
5. It was submitted on behalf of learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the State that the High Court has erred in law in allowing the 
writ petitions and dismissing the writ appeal. As per the initial order, 
booklets were required to be supplied by 25.2.2008. Time was essence 
of contract. Though time was extended but it was made clear that after 
31.3 .2008 no such booklets will be accepted, later on its format had 
been changed for the subsequent year as such they were of no use to 
the State. The payment was required to be made only on account of 
booklets which were supplied till 31.3.2008. Letter dated 22.5.2008 was 
cancelled by the State Government on 30.1.2009 and supply after 
31.3.2008 had not been accepted as it was of no use due to change of 
format. The writ petition could not be said to be an appropriate remedy 
for claiming the amount in case of non-statutory contract. The High 
Court has erred in directing the State Government to accept the booklets 
printed ti 1122 .5 .2008. 
6. Learned counsel appearing 011 behalf of the respondents has 
supported the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court 
and has submitted that in the writ petition filed by Ruchi Printers, order 
had been passed by Single Bench on 6.11.2008 to make payment within 
three months as per the communication dated 22.5.2008. Thus there 
was no justification to recall the communication dated 22.5.2008 by
issuance of letter dated 30.1.2009. As the booklets had been printed the 
High Cour1 had rightly directed to accept the supply. Thus no case for 
interference is made out. 
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the 
opinion that the order for printing booklets was placed with printers on 
16.1.2008. The booklets were to be supplied on time bound basis by 
25.2.2008. The respondents were well aware that the time was the 
essence of the contract and there was requirement of these booklets on 
time bound basis. Though communication dated 25 .2.2008 approving 
format was issued but the respondents very we! I knew that the time was 
the essence of contract and the printing of booklets was to be completed 
at the earliest. However as supplies were not made as stipulated, even 
within one month after 25.2.2008, another communication dated 28.3.2008 
was issued by the Controller to supply Rin Pustik11s before 31.3 .2008. In 
case any work remains incomplete, the work order be treated as 
cancelled. Thus, in unequivocal terms, it was made clear that no booklets 
were to be received after 31.3.2008 and whatever booklets were ready 
they were to be supplied by 31.3.2008. Thus, in our opinion, there was
I 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. M/S. RUCH! 
PRINTERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.] 
no rhyme or reason for printers to print any booklets after cancellation 
of order w.e.f. 31.3.2008 till 22.5.2008. Printing of booklets after 
31.3 .2008 was wholly unauthorized. No doubt about it that on 22.5.2008 
the Under Secretary had issued a communication that certain specified 
number of booklets may be accepted. However, the said communication 
had been recalled on 30.1.2009. The High Court, in our opinion, was not 
at all justified in enforcing the communication dated 22.5.2008 which 
was palpably illegal and there was reason for the printers to print the 
booklets after 31.3.2008. In view of aforesaid fact, the communication 
dated 22.5.2008 had been rightly cancelled on 30.1.2009 as these booklets 
were no more required by State Government due to further change of 
format of booklets. Even otherwise timely supply was necessary as per 
order dated 16.1.2008 though the communication dated 25.2.2008 was 
silent as to the time within which the supply was to be made. The printers 
were very well aware that booklets were required urgently and time 
was essence of the contract and time for supply could not have been 
more than what was originally stipulated. Sufficient time had been given 
to them to supply the booklets and the booklets supplied by them till 
31.3.2008 had been accepted by the appellants and payment has also 
been made. Thus after the order for printing booklets stood
cancelled on 
failure to supply within the stipulated period, the contract came to an 
end, there was no reason for the printers to print the booklets. No 
communication has been placed on record between 31.3.2008 and 
22.5.2008 asking printers to print and supply the booklets. No right 
could be said to have accrued on the basis of palpably illegal 
communication dated 22.5.2008. The Divisioi1 Bench of the High Court 
in the circumstances of the case has erred in directing that the booklets 
printed till 22.5.2008 be accepted. Booklets printed after 31.3.2008 were 
without any work order in existence. The communication dated 
25 .2.2008 did not confer on them a right to print books after 3 1.3 .2008. 
Whatever booklets they had supplied till 31.3.2008 were accepted. Thus, 
the High Court has erred in the facts of the case to interfere in contractual 
matter and by granting the relief. However, we observe that in case 
payment has not been made to the printers for booklets which were 
supplied till 31.3.2008, it shall be made fo11hwith. 
8. Thus, the impugned judgment and order is set aside, the appeals 
are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals allowed. 
541 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H