Uco Bank Vs. Yash Paul Gupta (Deceased) Through His Lrs. - 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 - 1 failed to deposit the instalment in time and also infringed the terms and conditions of the loan. it is the case of the petitioner that these documents had been filed along with the plaint but the counsel failed to get the same exhibited. if additional evidence is not allowed, the suit would fail on technical grounds. a substantive right cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is curable.v.k. jhanji, j. 1. prayer made in this application is to hear the civil revision at an early date.2. since respondents could not be served through ordinary process, they were served by way of substituted service. despite service, none has come forward to represent them. considering that the suit for recovery of amount filed by the petitioner bank was stayed at the motion hearing, the civil revision is taken on board. counsel heard.3. this civil revision is directed against order dated 5.9.1994 passed by sub judge 1st class, panipat dismissing an application filed by the petitioner to prove the statement of account showing debit balance of loanee as also the power of attorney issued by the bank in favour of p.k. mehra and the sanction order.4. petitioner bank had granted cash assistance to respondent no. 1 for the purchase of a bus to the tune of rs. 2,45,000/-. it is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 stood guarantor for the loan. it is also the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 failed to deposit the instalment in time and also infringed the terms and conditions of the loan. petitioner alleged that the respondent had in violation of the hypothecation, sold the bus to respondent no. 3 without the consent of the petitioner. petitioner thus filed a suit for recovery of rs. 2,90,253/-. the suit was filed by p.k. mehra, the then manager. the bank led its evidence and examined k.k. gulati, pw-1 and r. k. malik, pw-2 to prove the terms and conditions of the loan. evidence of the bank was closed on 18.1.1993 by order of the court. when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, it was realised that inadvertently the statement of account showing debit balance of rs. 2,90,253 of the loanee on the date of filing of the suit, the general power of attorney of the bank in favour of p.k. mehra and the sanction order, had not been got exhibited. it is the case of the petitioner that these documents had been filed along with the plaint but the counsel failed to get the same exhibited. in order to prove these documents, the petitioner moved an application for permission to prove the documents by way of additional evidence but the same has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 5.9.1994. hence, this civil revision.5. it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were already on record and if by inadvertence, the same have not been exhibited, it amounted only to procedural irregularity and the trial court ought to have allowed the petitioner to cure it. i find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence are formal documents and are necessary to prove the amount of loan and the authority of the manager to file the suit. if additional evidence is not allowed, the suit would fail on technical grounds. a substantive right cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is curable. time and again, it has been held by the apex court that rules of procedure are meant to be hand-maid to the administration of justice. a party cannot be refused relief merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. the provision of order xviii rule 17-a,cpc cannot be interpreted in a manner which may defeat cause of justice for any negligence on the part of a party particularly when the opposite party can be compensated with costs.6. consequently, this civil revision is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. trial court shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence. respondents shall, of course, be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal.