Monika Vs. Sital Singh - 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 - 1611/- per month (as per salary certificate), on his son, who, is college-going, and, the respondent has also to pay rental charges of the house in which he is residing, as well as, the fact that the mother of the petitioner, with whom she is residing of her own accord, is also an earning hand. 9. after taking all these facts into consideration, as well as, the feet that the respondent is also maintaining his son and spending money on his education, the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner is enhanced from rs.s.s. grewal, j.1. the petitioner through her mother (natural guardian) filed application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code').2. it was pleaded that the petitioner is a minor daughter of sital singh respondent, and, she is residing with her mother. it was further pleaded that the respondent is employed as an audit inspector in the punjab state land mortgage bank, sector 17, chandigarh, and is getting a salary of rs. 2000/- per month. he is also having landed property in his native village. the respondent intentionally neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner, who, is school-going, and, is studying in 8th class in government model high school, sector 22, chandigarh. it was prayed that the petitioner be granted maintenance at the rate of rs. 500/- pet month.3. the respondent in the written statement admitted the factum of relationship with the petitioner and her mother. it was pleaded that the respondent is willing to keep and maintain the petitioner, but, she is living with her mother at her own will.4. it was next pleaded on behalf of the respondent that he is getting a salary of rs. 1513/- per month, whereas, the petitioner's mother, with whom she is presently living, is getting a salary of rs. 2,000/- per month. besides, be is to look after his old parents, and is also maintaining his son, who, is brother of the petitioner. it was prayed that the application for granting maintenance to the petitioner be dismissed.5. the trial court after recording evidence of the parties held that the respondent refused to keep and maintain the petitioner without any sufficient cause, and, awarded rs. 100/- per month as maintenance as the mother of the petitioner was also earning hand, vide order dated 21st september, 1987. while, passing the said order, the chief judicial magistrate, took into consideration that the respondent is incurring the expenditure, out of his salary of rs. 1611/- per month (as per salary certificate), on his son, who, is college-going, and, the respondent has also to pay rental charges of the house in which he is residing, as well as, the fact that the mother of the petitioner, with whom she is residing of her own accord, is also an earning hand. the impugned order passed by the chief judicial magistrate, chandigarh, was upheld on revision by the additional sessions judge, chandigarh, vide order dated 4th january, 1989.6. aggrieved against the inadequacy of the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner, she has filed the present petition under section 482 of the code.7. counsel for the parties were heard.8. on behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner for getting her education in the school was too inadequate in these days of high prices. no doubt, while granting maintenance under section 125 of the code, bare maintenance has to be awarded. in the instant case both the courts below have held that the respondent gets rs. 1611/- per month as his salary. mere fact that mother of the petitioner is also earning, is no ground to expect her to bear she entire burden of maintenance and education of the petitioner.9. after taking all these facts into consideration, as well as, the feet that the respondent is also maintaining his son and spending money on his education, the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner is enhanced from rs. 100/- to rs. 200/- per month from the date of this order. the quantum of maintenance upto the date of his order shall be the same as awarded by the courts below.10. this petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.