Suraj Parkash and ors. Vs. Ram Nath and ors. - 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 - as is now well-known, an able-bodied young labourer has an earning capacity of at least rs. in the case of narain kumar, the fact that he had worked with haryana roadways and also possessed the conductor's licence clearly implies that he had the capacity, as also the chance of working as a bus conductor or something equivalent to that.s.s. sodhi, j.1. the claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. the claimants being to parents, brothers and sister of narain kumar deceased, who was killed when the truck hra 9682 coming from the opposite direction hit into his cycle. this happened on november 15, 1977, on the zirakpur panchkula road.2. it was the finding of the tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. a sum of rs. 15,300/- was awarded as compensation.3. according to the evidence on record, narain kumar deceased wag about 20 years of age at the time of his death. he was unemployed at the time of the accident, but had earlier been working as a helper in the haryana roadways workshop and according to his father aw 3 suraj parkash he also possessed conductor's licence. as is now well-known, an able-bodied young labourer has an earning capacity of at least rs. 300/- to rs. 400/-per month. in the case of narain kumar, the fact that he had worked with haryana roadways and also possessed the conductor's licence clearly implies that he had the capacity, as also the chance of working as a bus conductor or something equivalent to that. the loss to the parents must thus be assessed in this light. narain kumar was unmarried at the time his death, but it is reasonable to assume that had he lived, he would have got married and raised a family and it is from what have been left with him after meeting their expenses too that he could have supported his parents. suraj parkash, the father of the deceased, was only about 46 years of age when his son died. the mother of the deceased would presumably be somewhat younger.4. taking an overall view of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased in the context of the principles laid down by the full bench in lachhman singh v. gurmit kaur 1979 plr 1, it would be fair and just to assess the compensation payable to the claimants, i.e., the parents at rs. 30,000/-. the compensation payable to them is accordingly hereby enhanced to that sum. they shall, in addition, be (sic) to interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. it may be clarified that keeping in view the judgment of the full bench in fao 135 of 1980 parkash chand v. pal singh etc decided on may 7, 1985, no compensation would be payable in this case to the brothers and sister of the deceased. the entire compensation would thus be payable to the parents alone.5. this appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. counsel's fee rs. 500/-.