HARIDWAR SINGH versus BAGUN SUMBRUI AND ORS.

HARIDWAR SINGH versus BAGUN SUMBRUI AND ORS.

There was no concluded contract between the appellant and the government, as confirmation of the bid was not communicated and was subject to revocation. The subsequent lease in favour of respondent no. 6, granted without mandatory prior consultation with the Finance Department as required by Rule 10(1), was invalid and quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Haridwar Singh; Respondents 1 5: Bagun Sumbrui and Ors.; Respondent 6: Md. Yakub
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 February 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated May 6, 1971 of the Patna High Court in C.w.j.c. No. 41 of 1971
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.
Legal Topics
Auction Contracts, Public Auction, Executive Action, Statutory Rules, Public Duty, Mandatory Vs. Directory Provisions
Contracts Public Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Auction Contracts Public Auction Executive Action Statutory Rules +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haridwar Singh

Appellant

Bagun Sumbrui and Ors.

Respondents 1 5

Md. Yakub

Respondent 6

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated May 6, 1971 of the Patna High Court in C.w.j.c. No. 41 of 1971

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a concluded contract between the appellant and the Government for the lease of the bamboo coup
  2. 2 Whether settlement of the coup with respondent no. 6 was invalid for violation of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Executive Business made under Article 166(3) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

There was no concluded contract between the appellant and the government, as confirmation of the bid was not communicated and was subject to revocation. The subsequent lease in favour of respondent no. 6, granted without mandatory prior consultation with the Finance Department as required by Rule 10(1), was invalid and quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.

Orders

  • Order of the Minister of Forest, Government of Bihar dated December 13, 1970, settling the bamboo coup in favour of respondent no. 6 is quashed.
  • No order as to costs.