Case: Abdul Rahiman Khan Vs. Sadasiva Tripathi

3. In January 1965 tenders were invited by the Government of Orissa for construction of buildings under the Rental Housing Scheme. The tenders submitted by the appellant were accepted and on March 30, 1965, the appellant and the Executive Engineer signed an agreement in Form K-2. The principal recitals in the agreements were:"I do hereby tender to execute the undermentioned description of work by piece work, and in accordance with the conditions noted before in consideration of payment being made for the quantity of work execute at rate specified in the following scheme."A schedule of items was appended thereto which was followed by the recital:"Conditions as per F-2 contract which will be finalised."4. The Executive Engineer then made an endorsement on the tenders. "Accepted by me for item 5 only," and submitted them to the Superintending Engineer for approval of "excess items. Apparently sanction was given by the Superintending Engineer but no formal contracts in Form F-2 were executed. Advance payments were however made to the appellant after execution of the agreements in Form K-2 and the appellant proceeded with the work of construction. On October 13, 1965, the appellant suffered serious injuries which necessitated his admission to a public Hospital and the construction work was stopped. On January 6, 1966, the Sub-Divisional Officer, P. W. D., Nowrangpur, addressed a letter to the appellant calling upon him to resume work on or about the January 12, 1960, failing which, he was informed, his contract will be terminated and "measurements will be recorded". On February 10, 1966, the appellant addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer P. W. D. stating that it was not possible for him to resume the work and to complete it, and he requested that the contract be cancelled without imposition of penalty. On the letter of the appellant there are two endorsements at the foot of the letter which have been marked Ext. 2 (a) and Ext. 2 (b). Exhibit 2 (a) reads:"Submitted to the Executive Engineer, Koraput Division. The reason for terminating the contract, as mentionod by Shri A. R. Khan, contractor, is correct. His contract may be terminated without imposing penalty and permission given to take up work through job work soon."Exhibit 2 (b) dated March 18, 1966, bears the initials of the Executive Engineer, and states:"I know of the unfortunate accident. As the applicant is still in thee Vizag Hospital his work may be finally measured and closed without penalty. The balance of the work may be completed through job work."5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nowrangpur, wrote a letter on March 16, 1955, requesting one Harihar Bisoi pursuant to his application dated March 5, 1966, to take up the Rental Housing Schedule building work at Nowrangpur "immediately at current schedule of rates after taking detailed instructions from the Sectional Officer, Nowrangpur. It appears that Harihar Bisoi did some construction work, but no payment was made to him and he also stopped the work.      6. The appellant strongly relies upon the endorsements made on the letter dated February 10, 1966, the letter Ext. 3, and the evidence of Ram Mohan Patnaik- the Executive Engineer. Ram Mohan Patnaik stated that he by his endorsement Ext. 2 (b) on the application dated February 10, 1966, had clearly directed that the work of the contractor (appellant) would be finally measured and his contract would be treated as closed and no penalty would be charged from him that the question of accounting had nothing to do with the closing of the contract; and that on March 18, 1966, he had pasted an order Ext. 2 (b) that the contract was closed. According to the witness closure of the contract was not contingent upon the measurement of the work done by the appellant, and that by his order dated March 18, 1966 Ext. 2 (b) the appellant was excused from liability to complete the work as the contract was rescinded and by implication Ext. 2 (b) meant that the Sub-Divisional Officer would give intimation to the contractor about the cancellation of his contract. The witness could not say whether the Sub-Divisional Officer did give intimation to the contractor. He asserted that it was not his intention that job work should be entrusted to job workers only after the final bill of the appellant was submitted; his clear intention was that after measurement was taken, the work may be entrusted to job workers. According to the witness by Ext. 2 (b) he accepted the incomplete work of the appellant "as a complete satisfaction of his contract."

Court's reasoning:
9. It is true that by virtue of the Explanation to S. 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, where a contract has been fully performed by the person by whom it has been entered into with the appropriate Government, the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact, that the Government has not performed its part of the contract either wholly or in part. In the present case the contract was not wholly performed by the appellant, and unless he had completed the contract or showed that there was determination by mutual assent of the contract, the appellant cannot claim that there was no subsisting contract at the date of the filing of the nomination paper. By letter written by the appellant on July 22, 1966, Ext. C, the appellant made a request for extension of time by six months to enable him to complete the work and by his letter Ext. D dated December 20, 1966 he requested the Superintending Engineer not to cancel the contract or call for new tenders. This conduct of the appellant clearly suggests that he did not treat the contract as cancelled, nor is there any clear evidence to show that the authorities had treated the contract as cancelled. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the case did not fall within the explanation to S. 9-A of the Representation of the People Act and there was no evidence of determination of the contract by mutual agreement10. Counsel for the appellant contended that the contract for execution of works was between the State and the appellant and Art. 299 of the Constitution applied thereto, and since the contract was not shown to be executed in the name of the Governor, and by an authority competent to execute the contract on behalf of the Governor, the disqualification under S. 9-A did not apply. By Cl. (1) of Article 299 all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the State must be expressed to be made by the Governor of the State, and all such contracts made in the exercise of that power must be executed on behalf of the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise. It is true that agreements were executed by the Executive Engineer in Form K-2 but no final contracts were executed in Form F-2. The appellant proceeded on the footing that there was a binding contract under which he had undertaken the work of construction for the State, and the State allowed work and had offered to pay him for the work done at the rates set out in Form K-2. The appellant could not by virtue of Art. 299 sue in a civil court on the agreement in Form K-2 for compensation for breach of contract. But we are unable to hold that the appellant was not disqualified under S. 9-A of the Representation of the People Act merely because the contracts were not enforceable against the State because of Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution11. As already pointed out, the appellant had commenced execution of the work but had not completed it. Payment for the work done was not made to the appellant. The contract was not determined by mutual agreement nor was it abandoned12.The contract resulting from the acceptance of his tender though not enforceable by suit against the State Government, because it did not comply with Article 299, must still be regarded as disqualifying the appellant under the Representation of the People Act from standing as a candidate for election to the State Legislature.