Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - still dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed. a perusal of the concurrent findings of the courts below, clearly goes to show that the same are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. in this view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.sham sunder, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.1993, rendered by the court of sessions judge, ambala, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.08.1992, rendered by the special railway magistrate (haryana) ambala cantt. whereby, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence, punishable under section 9 of the opium act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' only).2. the facts, in brief, are that on 31.08.1278, a police party headed by arjun singh, head constable, was present on patrol duty at platform no. 3, railway station ambala cantt. the accused was spotted. on seeing the police party, he started walking briskly. he was stopped on suspicion. on search of the bag, being carried by him, one kilogram opium was recovered. a sample of 20 grams of opium, was taken out of the same, and the remaining opium was kept in the same bag. the sample and the remaining opium were converted into two parcels, and the same were sealed with the seal being impression 'hss' and taken into possession, vide recovery memo. the accused was arrested. the statements of the witnesses were recovered. after the completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. on his appearance, in the trial court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. charge under section 9 of the act, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. prosecution, in support of its case, examined gir raj singh, hc, (pw-1), arjun singh, hc, investigating officer, (pw-2), bhawani ram, asi, (pw-3), rawal chand, independent witness, (pw-4) and vishav mitra, constable, (pw5). thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.4. the statement of the accused, under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, was recorded. he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. he pleaded false implication. however, no defence evidence was led by the accused. the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial court, an appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.1993, by the court of the sessions judge, ambala. still dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed.5. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.6. there are concurrent findings of trial court, and the appellate court, to the effect, that the accused was found in conscious possession of one kilogram opium, without any permit or licence. a perusal of the concurrent findings of the courts below, clearly goes to show that the same are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. the concurrent findings of the courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. the findings of the courts below, deserve to be up-held.7. faced with this situation, the counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the accused-revision-petitioner, has been facing the agony of protracted criminal proceedings, since 31.08.1978, when he was arrested, and, as such, the sentence awarded to him, by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court, be reduced to the one already undergone by him, which comes to about 13 days. he also placed reliance on jagdish rai @ jagdish lal v. state of punjab 2001 (1) r.c.r. (criminal) 188, in support of his contention. the facts of the instant case, however, do not call for showing any leniency, to the revision-petitioner, in regard to the sentence, awarded to him. a perusal of the judgment dated 31.3.1993 of the appellate court, goes to show that the revision-petitioner jumped bail twice before the trial court, and was even declared proclaimed offender. he, in the first instance, had remained absent, during trial from 29.9.1978 to 11.4.1981. thereafter, he again remained absent from the court, after jumping the bail from 10.12.1982 to 21.7.1992 and was declared proclaimed offender. since the accused remained absconder, for a very long time, as indicated above, i am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case, in which the sentence awarded to him, should be reduced, to the period already undergone by him.8. in my opinion, the sentence imposed by the trial court, is already on the lower side, and does not call for further reduction. no help can, therefore, be drawn by the counsel for the revision-petitioner, from the aforesaid case, as the same was decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. no invariable principle of law, was laid down, in the aforesaid authority, that in every case of recovery of opium, irrespective of its peculiar facts and circumstances, the sentence should be reduced, merely, on the ground of the protracted criminal proceedings, faced by the accused, even if, it is not a fit case, warranting the reduction thereof. in this view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.9. for the reasons recorded herein before, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. the judgment dated 12.08.1992, rendered by the trial court, and the judgment dated 31.03.1993, rendered by the appellate court, affirming the same, are up-held. the revision-petitioner, if on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. the chief judicial magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, with due promptitude.