Shri Bruno Dias Souza Son of Late Mr. Julio Souza Vs. State of Goa Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 10: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre, jj] admission to professional colleges - technical courses - publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges held, for ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. the first step in this direction would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. it is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. this brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. this brochure or admission notification issued by the state or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. there is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law. section 10: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre,jj] admission to professional colleges - technical courses - approval to additional seats or to start new course - cut off dates held, the settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. this rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. one of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. this can be illustrated by giving an example. college a which is running a professional course like engineering or mba etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. however, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the aicte and thereafter, the process is taken up by the state and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. these seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college a; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. none had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. in that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. it is also a kind of back door entry method. another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. it is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. this results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. admission to professional colleges: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre, jj] technical courses - held, in process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) all india technical council for technical education, (ii) state of maharashtra through director of technical education and (iii) university to which such institution is affiliated the role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. primary of the rule of all india council for technical education (aicte) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the state government and for that matter the university is without any purpose or of no importance. the council is the authority constituted under the central act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the state as well as that of the university. the concerned department of the state and the affiliating university has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. they cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the central statute or the students laid down a by the central body. state can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the central body. while the state grants its approval and university its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the central authority or council. what is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist admission to professional courses: [swatanter kumar, c.j.,a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre, jj] admission schedule - interference by courts held, all the expert bodies viz. aicte as well as directorate of education in consultation with the departments of the state regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. there has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. it is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified schedule and timely commencement of courses. - 1. this is an appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff. (b) the plaintiff was selected as the best entry in the competition. and due to failure of defendants to pay, and then the plaintiff has filed the suit. the government accepted the said bill as scorrect and however failed to make the said payment till today. (c) in spite of acceptance, the defendants have failed to make the said payment till today. 21. in this premise, only conclusion that as to plaintiff's assertion contained in point (a) of para 16, emerges is that the plaintiff had furnished drawings through his letter dated 10th january 1987. 22. it is also seen that the plaintiff was informed by chief architect very clearly stating that plaintiff's professional bill will be attended 'only after approval of stage i drawings by the committee'.this is contained in letter dated 7th july 1987 at page 48 of the paper book, and quoted in foregoing paragraph number 19 (a). 23. plaintiff's last contention is that the committee of eight persons indicated in the minutes of meeting dated 26.8.88 at page 53, is the committee who was supposed to give approval. 25. it is seen that this failure of the government or public works department to accord approval or sanction has continued. this communication clearly indicate that compliance offered by the plaintiff as to 'stage i' was not approved by the public works department or state government. 44. plaintiff has not come with a case that though performance done by him was due and adequate, yet the government had failed in performing its obligation and hence, the plaintiff was entitled for being 'compensation towards breach' or 'restitution' towards the non gratuitous act done by him for the defendants. for recovery of which he is entitled, and it is clearly seen that whatever was the performance rendered by the plaintiff is not accepted by the state government.a.h. joshi, j.1. this is an appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff.2. case proceeds on facts admitted by plaintiff namely:(a) chief architect, pwd invited plaintiff to participate in a public competition amongst selected architects, to design high court complex for goa, by sending to them a brief with the site plan and rules of the competition, and by giving a description of the project.(b) the plaintiff was selected as the best entry in the competition.(c) agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the respondent no. 3 setting out terms of the engagement of services of the appellant.(d) the respondent no. 2 requested the plaintiff to proceed with the assignment, and plaintiff submitted the plan to the respondent no. 2.(e) certain correspondence was exchanged, meetings were held and minutes have been recorded.(f) plaintiff raised bill for advance @ 1.5% of cost of project as per schedule of rates.(g) stage ii of working designs and preparation of the estimates was not progressed.(h) plaintiff has not been paid.(i) plaintiff issued notice under section 80 c.p.c. and due to failure of defendants to pay, and then the plaintiff has filed the suit.3. in order to appreciate plaintiff's claim as to his right to receive the payment being fructified, it would be useful to take the resume of his pleadings, that too adverbatim, which read as follows:11. for the purpose of making interim payments, the cost of the buildings was to be taken as the estimated costs of the building on the basis of public works department's schedule of rates with ad hoc increases approved by p.w.d. all interim payments made would be necessarily 'on account payments' to be adjusted against the final amount of fees payable to the architect.12. for the purposes of designing the said complex, the plaintiff even had to engage and consult a number of specialists in the field, at his own costs of course, and the bills of the said specialists have yet to be settled by the plaintiff.13. the works to be carried by the plaintiff for the stage i mentioned above, were completed by the plaintiff and submitted to the defendants.14. the estimates of costs of the construction of the complex as per the schedule of rates of p.w.d., goa, were also submitted together with drawings and other documents as required under the agreement for stage i. the estimated cost was rs. 430,29,000/- (rupees four hundred thirty lakhs, twenty nine thousand only) which was confirmed by an independent estimate prepared by p.w.d.15. the stage i work was submitted at the meeting between the chief engineer of p.w.d., senior architect and the plaintiff for approval of stage i work. this took place on 23rd december 1986 and the drawings and whatever was prepared at stage i, was approved at that meeting and confirmed at other meetings with higher authorities of the government and the plaintiff was advised to proceed with stage ii of the project. this fact was recorded by the plaintiff and was forwarded by the plaintiff to the chief engineer of p.w.d., by his letter dated 16.1.1987.16. in fact, the work and drawings under stage i were accepted by the senior architect and the chief engineer of p.w.d. in december, 1986.17. in terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff was to be made an interim payment of 1.5% of the estimated costs on completion of the first stage which had been duly completed and approved. consequently, the plaintiff by letter dated 5th february 1987 forwarded to the defendants the bill for rs. 6,37,935/-(rupees six lakhs thirty seven thousand, nine hundred thirty five only) which corresponded to the said 1.5% for the completion of stage i after adjusting 10% of the prize money sum as per the agreement.18. the defendants' architect shri d.b. lal acknowledged having received the bill by his letters dated 24.2.1987 and 25.2.1987 and forwarded the same to the concerned departments for necessary action.19. the defendants, i.e. the government accepted the said bill as scorrect and however failed to make the said payment till today. in fact, the then development commissioner by his letter dated 25.8.1987 had informed the plaintiff that the chief engineer of p.w.d. had informed him that all the pending bills of the plaintiff have been cleared. however, no payment at all of the bill no. 1 has been made so far to the plaintiff. although, as per the agreement, payment is to be made within 21 days of the submission of the bill (4.4.v).20. the plaintiff addressed various letters to the p.w.d. officials, the senior architect, the chief engineer, the development commissioner and even to the then hon'ble minister for law and judiciary reminding them of the said interim payment.21. the defendants have never disputed the said amount and even promised to make the payments of the said amount. in fact, the plaintiff was told that the delay in payment was because, any payment to be made has to be sent to the other departments such as accounts department, etc., and that this route takes some time.22. thereafter, by letter dated 4.11.1988 from the chief architect, shri g. gomes, an assurance was given that the payment of bill no. 1 at 1% mentioned in the agreement would be honoured as soon as the administrative approval and expenditure sanction is given to the project.(quoted from pages no. 16 to 19 of first appeal paper book).4. in summary,claim of the plaintiff is that:(a) he had completed performance on his part i.e. has discharged his obligation to deliver 'the stage i - design development stage'.(b) thereby, he had become entitled to receive the 1.5% advance.5. considering denial of plaintiff's version by the defendants, denied that plaintiff performance was accepted by them.6. learned trial judge framed the issues, which are quoted below:1. whether the plaintiff proves that the works carried out by him for stage i were completed by him in all respects?2. whether the plaintiff proves that the works for stage - i submitted by him was approved at the meeting convened on the 23rd december, 1986 and confirmed at other meetings with higher authorities of the government and that the plaintiff was advised to proceed with stage ii of the project?3. whether the plaintiff proves that he was entitled to an interim payment of 1.5% of the estimated costs on completion of the first stage, which was duly completed and approved, which corresponds to rs. 6,37,935.00?4. whether the plaintiff proves that the government accepted his bill for rs. 6,37,935.00 as correct and that he was informed that all his pending bills had been cleared?5. whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover the sum of rs. 6,37,935.00 from the defendants and interest thereon at the rate of 14% p.a. or such other rate, from the date of institution of the suit till actual payment?6. what relief? what order?(quoted from page no. 89)7. in fact, issues no. 1 and 2 as framed by the trial court could are crucial.8. acts done by the plaintiff, by way of furnishing some designs, etc. are not in dispute.the pivotal question is, whether performance on the part, of plaintiff is either adequate in terms of contract and if so, was it accepted by the government to be liable to pay the amount of 1% advance remuneration.9. therefore, if issues no. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff, rest of the issues involve arithmetic or consequential action.10. case is based on documentary evidence and oral evidence is of least significance.11. in the background of evidence, documentary and oral, learned trial court answered all issues in negative, and dismissed the suit.12. the plaintiff has in present appeal raised various grounds, crucial amongst those are ground nos. 10, 11 and 12 and it would be convenient to quote relevant part thereof as follows:10. the plaintiff submits that the main question that arises in the matter was whether in terms of the agreement, stage i (design development stage) had been completed before submission of the plaintiff's bill. clause 4.1(vi) of the agreement provides that stage i shall be deemed to have been completed when the public works department approves the sketch scheme, report and estimate of cost...the cross-examination of the plaintiff by the respondents seems to suggest that government had not given approval to the project and it was not their case that pwd had not given their approval.11. the main issue in the present case appears to have been misconstrued by the learned trial judge by confusing administrative approval which is given by the government and accorded after technical approval is given by pwd. the agreement, specifically in clause 4.1(vi), specified approval of the sketch scheme, report and estimate of cost, which means technical approval from pwd according to pwd rates. it is only after approval by pwd that the plans are sent to the government for administrative approval, which part is not contemplated under the agreement between the parties.12. ...further, it has also come on record that in the meeting held on 26.8.1988, minutes of which were produced in evidence, discussions were held on the payment of the architect and it was clarified that the payment for phase i of 1% of the estimated cost was due and it was agreed that his fees were to be paid as early as possible. it was also directed by the hon'ble law minister at the said meeting that the fees for phase i could be plaid within that week.(quoted from pages e, f and g of appeal paper book)13. in the light of grounds raised and oral submissions, the points which arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:(1) do acts of performance on the part of plaintiff constitute due and adequate act of performance to attract the liability to pay the agreed amount of advance without pwd's approval of 'drawings and designs stage i'.(2) do any of the acts and communications, decisions, etc. by and on the part of the defendants in fact and in law constitute acceptance by them of performance rendered by plaintiff, raising consequential liability to pay the agreed advance of 1.5% of the estimate based on schedule of rates.14. as indicated earlier plaintiff's case is based on documentary evidence. these documents are:1. the agreement dated 4.7.1986. (pages 36 to 43)2. minutes of the meeting participated by (1) chief engineer p.w.d., goa; (2) senior architect p.w.d., goa and (3) bruno dias souza - architect dated 23.12.1986. (page no. 46)3. minutes of the meeting participated by (1) minister of law, (2) law secretary, (3) chief engineer p.w.d., (4) senior architect p.w.d., (5) bruno dias souza - architect dated 23.12.1986. (page 47)4. minutes of the meeting participated by (1) mr. justice g. couto, (2) law secretary, (3) chief engineer p.w.d., (4) senior architect p.w.d. and (5) bruno dias souza - architect dated 23.12.1986. (page 47)5. letter written by the plaintiff dated 16.1.1987 exbt. 9. (page 45)6. letter dated 7.7.1987 written by project coordinator to plaintiff. (page 48)7. minutes of meeting participated by (1) hon. minister for law - chairman (2) hon. justice dr. g. p. couto-member, (3) development commissioner - member, (4) secretary (finance) - member, (5) law secretary - member, (6) chief engineer p.w.d. - member, (7) chief architect p.w.d. - member, (8) architect bruno dias souza -invitee dated 26.8.88. (pages 53 to 57)8. letter written by shri c. g. gomes, chief architect of p.w.d. to shri bruno dias souza, architect dated 4.11.1988. (page 51)15. based on the contents of these documents, plaintiff's categoric assertion is as follows:(a) the plaintiff has rendered - delivered performance on his part of stage i of drawings and designs, when he has furnished letter dated 16.1.86 which is at page 45 item no. 5 in the list quoted in foregoing paragraph.(b) defendants, i.e. the government accepted the said performance as can be seen from minutes of various meetings and in particular in the meeting held on 26.8.1988, copy of minutes whereof are at item no. 7 in the foregoing paragraph.(c) in spite of acceptance, the defendants have failed to make the said payment till today.16. now therefore from these documents this court has to decide as to whether plaintiff's acts which according to him, amount to completion of 'stage i' was approved by the public works department as alleged and relied upon by the plaintiff.17. it is clear from the terms of written agreement dated 4.7.86, that compliance on the part of plaintiff was not expected to be complete on plaintiff's unilateral act, and rather it needed approval as can be seen from para 4.1(vi) of the agreement, which reads as follows:4.1(vi) obtain public works department's approval of the sketch scheme, report and estimate of cost. upon approval, the architect's services in connection with the design development stage shall be deemed to have been completed.(quoted from page 37)18. first set of acts were to be performed by the plaintiff. thereafter, the approval by the public works department of the state of goa was to be given by the government, which would entitle the plaintiff to receive renumeration which would accrue at 1st stage.19. on perusal of various letters and minutes relied upon by plaintiff, it is seen that it has come on record consistently in these letters, minutes, etc. as follows:(a) as regards 1(c) - the professional bill no. 1 will be attended only after the approval of stage i drawings by the committee. the committee has been proposed for the approval of government. besides it needs administrative approval and expenditure sanction which has already been initiated under this office letter no. 9/8/87/sa-pwd/921 dated 3rd march, 1987 to s.s.w., pwd, panaji.(quoted from letter dated 7th july 1987 which is at page 48)(b) the development commissioner directed that the case for administrative approval and financial sanction should be put before her early possible. the hon'ble law minister gave a deadline of a week's time...4. the architect should proceed with phase ii working drawings and tender documents stage after approval of phase i drawings.(quoted from the minutes of meeting held on 26.8.88 participated by 8 senior officers, hon'ble judge of high court and presided over by hon'ble minister of law at pages 53 to 57 of paper book.)(c) i have also received your letter dated 26th october 1988. the government's approval for the minutes of the meeting held on 26.8.88 is awaited, hence the delay in replying to your letter dated 13th september 1988...i feel since the approval of the committee for the preliminary drawings is awaited, it may not be advisable to proceed with phase ii.(quoted from page 51, letter dated 4.11.1988)20. it is not the plaintiff's case that apart from letters relied by him, listed in the paper book relied upon, and argued with reiteration before this court, that there exists any other act done by or on the part of the government by which approval for compliance of 'stage i' was granted by the public works department or the state government.21. in this premise, only conclusion that as to plaintiff's assertion contained in point (a) of para 16, emerges is that the plaintiff had furnished drawings through his letter dated 10th january 1987.22. it is also seen that the plaintiff was informed by chief architect very clearly stating that plaintiff's professional bill will be attended 'only after approval of stage i drawings by the committee'. this is contained in letter dated 7th july 1987 at page 48 of the paper book, and quoted in foregoing paragraph number 19 (a).23. plaintiff's last contention is that the committee of eight persons indicated in the minutes of meeting dated 26.8.88 at page 53, is the committee who was supposed to give approval. plaintiff has also shown from these minutes that chief architect was told to process the payment of bills of the plaintiff.24. discreet scrutiny of minutes of meeting disclose that this committee was not empowered to sanction/acceptance of designs stage i else portions quoted in foregoing paragraph 19 (b) seen at page 57 would not have appeared there.25. it is seen that this failure of the government or public works department to accord approval or sanction has continued. the government architect therefore wrote in his letter dated 4.11.88, that the government's approval for the minutes of the meeting held on 26.8.88 was still awaited. he has also mentioned that since the approval of the committee for the preliminary drawings is awaited, it may not be advisable to proceed with phase ii.this communication clearly indicate that compliance offered by the plaintiff as to 'stage i' was not approved by the public works department or state government.26. the aspect of need of approval by committee is reiterated in letter dated 4.11.1988, relevant portion whereof is quoted in forgoing para 19(c).27. all these facts which have emerged from admitted correspondence and minutes, on which plaintiff too very emphatically relies, it is clear that the performance rendered by the plaintiff, seen in isolation, was by itself not to be sufficient and due performance for arisal of liability of the defendants to pay 1.5% advance as agreed.28. stages of payment as incorporated in the agreement are as follows:(ii) the stages of payment will be as follows:(a) in addition the payment of working expenses (rs. 25,000/-), a premium of rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) will be immediately payable to the architects, as per the rules of the architectural competition held by the government of goa, daman and diu.(b) the payment of the award money of rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) awarded to the architect will form a part of the fees payable to the architect and shall be adjusted at the rate of 10% of against the fees subsequently paid to the architect. the award sum of rs. 75,000/- shall thus be absorbed in the total fees payable to the architect.(c) on completion of stage i above .... 1 1/2%(d) on completion of stage ii .... 1 1/2%(e) on completion of stage iii .... 1%(f) on completion of stage iv 1%(quoted marked portion from page 41 of paper book).29. completion of stage i is defined in para4.1 (vi) of the agreement which reads as follows:4.1 (vi) obtain public works department's approval of the sketch scheme, report and estimate of cost. upon approval,the architect's services in connection with the design development stage shall be deemed to have been completed.(quoted from page 37 of paper book)30. the term which has assumed pivotal status and around which entire controversy revolves is the 'public works departments' approval', as found in para 4.1(vi).31. the term 'public works department' and 'public works department's approval' are not defined in the agreement.32. plaintiff silent is all throughout on the point as to when and upon whose approval, it would be considered that the approval of 'public works department' has been granted.33. considering the documents on record admitted by both parties and relied upon by both parties neither amongst the committees whose minutes are (a) dated 23.12.86 at page 46 , (b) dated 23.12.86 at page 46, (c) dated 23.12.86 at page 47, and (d) dated 26.8.88 at page 53 , are the committees of public works department. all these committees are either high lower committees, appointed or constituted to oversee the progress or to monitor.none amongst these committees had power to order approval for and on behalf of public works department.34. none amongst these committees is shown to possess or to be able to act for the government of state of goa acting for and as the public works departments. on the other hand, they all are looking forward and are waiting for the 'administrative and financial approval' which is presumably and essentially from the government.35. this court had queered to learned advocate for the appellant as to whether it is the plaintiff's case and contention that any amongst these committees were allotted with the business subject matter under article 166 of constitution of india, and affirmative reply did not come forward.36. moreover if there was to be any allocation, it has to be by orders of the governor or by and in his name. had it been a plea, production of such orders could have been got done.37. in absence of any material coming forward, it has to be presumed that the power of the public works department was resting with the council of ministers.38. admittedly, there is no plea that any document of approval so titled or otherwise exists. had it been so, its production could have been directed.in contrast the defendants' stand is consistent that the design development stage i is not complete in absence of approval of public works department.39. present is not a case of sale of goods where as per the stipulations of sale, no sooner the goods are delivered, the sale may get completed, and ipsofacto, the buyer becomes entitled to receive the payment of price of goods delivered.40. present is a case of specialized and personal services of personal knowledge, expertise and skill. it is a selected and chosen architect.41. satisfaction of employer is an essential and inevitable ingredient before approval or sanction is accorded. doing and redoing again and again of various exercises was imperatively involved. it is in this background that the agreement seems to has stipulated for 'approval'. had the intention been otherwise, part or full payment would have fallen due upon base delivery of drawings, which either not expressed or implead.42. admittedly, plaintiff was already paid rs. 25,000/- and rs. 75,000/- (total rs. 1,00,000/-), for his initial work. though this payment was titled as 'initial expenses and reward', was deductible from bills.43. unilateral act of delivery of drawings was therefore not sufficient to attract liability to pay even for stage i payment of advance until approval, by the public works department. such approval alone would convert plaintiff's performance of stage i, into a promise and liability on the part of public works department to pay agreed advance renumeration. this, the acceptance by public works department is totally absent.44. plaintiff has not come with a case that though performance done by him was due and adequate, yet the government had failed in performing its obligation and hence, the plaintiff was entitled for being 'compensation towards breach' or 'restitution' towards the non gratuitous act done by him for the defendants.45. on the other hand, plaintiff's claim is for entitlement of amount is as per the expressed stipulations contained in the agreement. according to him, his claim is for enforcement of obligation to pay for the consideration in terms form of money, i.e. for recovery of which he is entitled, and it is clearly seen that whatever was the performance rendered by the plaintiff is not accepted by the state government. consideration of promise made by the government is satisfactory performance of stage i by plaintiff. this consideration flowing from the plaintiff would pass on to the government only after it is approved by the public works department i.e. the government. until said acceptance is accorded by the government in public works department, liability to perform reciprocal obligation does not arise or accrue.46. it is all throughout been asserted by defendants that the approval of p.w.d. was required. the plaintiff is relying upon various letters, minutes, etc. to contend that the government has granted approval. plain reading of these communications however consists of a chanting that 'approval of the government is still awaited'. it is in this premise, no other conclusion can emerge that one namely that the performance rendered by the plaintiff was not accepted rather not approved by the respondents.47. this court therefore answers both points framed for determination against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants. this court concurs with the findings recorded by the trial court on all issues.48. in the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.