Pritam Singh Vs. Atma 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 - 670, it was observed that once an amended plaint is filed, a legal right accrues to the opposite party to file a fresh written statement wherein new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the court at the time of allowing the amendment, 4. in the instant case, no reference whatsoever has been made either to any exceptional circumstance or any statutory bar or the order of the trial court, at the time of allowing the amendment which can create any legal bar for the defendant from taking new and inconsistant pleas while filing the written statement to the amended plaint.orders.s. grewal, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the order of sub-judge iiird class, patiala dated 29th october, 1991 whereby defendant was not permitted to raise new or inconsistant or additional pleas in the amended written statement.2. learned counsel for the parties were heard.3. on behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that on the strength of the authority of this court in prem singh v. harpal kaur, (1991-1) 99 p. l. r. 209, wherein relying on another authority of this court jagdish parshad v. dhensi ram (deceased), (1977) 79 p. l. r. 670, it was observed that once an amended plaint is filed, a legal right accrues to the opposite party to file a fresh written statement wherein new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the court at the time of allowing the amendment,4. in the instant case, no reference whatsoever has been made either to any exceptional circumstance or any statutory bar or the order of the trial court, at the time of allowing the amendment which can create any legal bar for the defendant from taking new and inconsistant pleas while filing the written statement to the amended plaint.5. on behalf of the defendant, it has been submitted that the amendment in the plaint was allowed only about description of the suit property by way of incorporating correct khasra numbers and as such it was not open to the defendant to raise new and inconsistant pleas in the written statement filed concerning the amended plaint. it was further submitted that by taking new and inconsistant pleas in the written statement not only an enitrely new case has been introduced but the admission already made by the defendant in his earlier written statement has been changed and the valuable right already accrued to the plaintiff had been effected adversely.6. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, i am of the opinion that there would be no legal bar to withdraw the admission made by the defendant in the earlier written statement when he got the opportunity to file written statement to the amended plaint. however, the learned trial court will consider the change/ withdrawal of admissions made in the written statement to the amended plaint at the appropriate stage while deciding the suit or while dealing with the evidence produced by the parties the impugned order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be a legal order as the same suffers from error of jurisdiction. the defendent had been debarred from raising certain pleas in the written statement which he is legally entitled to raise. this petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. the written statement to the amended plaint shall also be considered by the trial court, as having been properly filed. however, it is clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition shall in any way be construed to effect the rights of the parties on merits. this petition is accordingly disposed of. copy of this order be given dasti.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.S. Grewal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Sub-Judge IIIrd Class, Patiala dated 29th October, 1991 whereby defendant was not permitted to raise new or inconsistant or additional pleas in the amended written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that on the strength of the authority of this Court in Prem Singh v. Harpal Kaur, (1991-1) 99 P. L. R. 209, wherein relying on another authority of this Court Jagdish Parshad v. Dhensi Ram (deceased), (1977) 79 P. L. R. 670, it was observed that once an amended plaint is filed, a legal right accrues to the opposite party to file a fresh written statement wherein new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the Court at the time of allowing the amendment,

4. In the instant case, no reference whatsoever has been made either to any exceptional circumstance or any statutory bar or the order of the trial Court, at the time of allowing the amendment which can create any legal bar for the defendant from taking new and inconsistant pleas while filing the written statement to the amended plaint.

5. On behalf of the defendant, it has been submitted that the amendment in the plaint was allowed only about description of the suit property by way of incorporating correct khasra numbers and as such it was not open to the defendant to raise new and inconsistant pleas in the written statement filed concerning the amended plaint. It was further submitted that by taking new and inconsistant pleas in the written statement not only an enitrely new case has been introduced but the admission already made by the defendant in his earlier written statement has been changed and the valuable right already accrued to the plaintiff had been effected adversely.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that there would be no legal bar to withdraw the admission made by the defendant in the earlier written statement when he got the opportunity to file written statement to the amended plaint. However, the learned trial Court will consider the change/ withdrawal of admissions made in the written statement to the amended plaint at the appropriate stage while deciding the suit or while dealing with the evidence produced by the parties The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be a legal order as the same suffers from error of jurisdiction. The defendent had been debarred from raising certain pleas in the written statement which he is legally entitled to raise. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The written statement to the amended plaint shall also be considered by the trial Court, as having been properly filed. However, it is clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition shall in any way be construed to effect the rights of the parties on merits. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given Dasti.