Gurjeet Kaur Alias Guddi Vs. Amar 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 - in view of the averment of the appellant that she has been maltreated by the respondent and there being no rebuttal to the allegations which have been supported on oath as well by her while appearing as her own witness, it stands proved that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce.orderv.k. jhanji, j.1. at the request made by counsel for the parties, fao no. 129 m of 1990 is taken on board.2. petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce was filed by the appellant against her husband, amar singh on the ground of cruelty. she had stated in her petition that after the marriage, respondent on one or other pretext gave her beatings. she was forced to do manual labour from morning till evening, and sometimes, she was neglected to be provided with daily meals. she alleged that she tolerated all the excesses of the respondent so that the brother of the respondent, with whom the elder sister of petitioner-appellant was married, may also not treat her sister likewise. she alleged that in the month of june 1987, she was giving merciless beatings by the respondent and was turned out of the house. a panchayat was taken to the respondent to request him to rehabilitate her but it proved futile. petition was contested by the respondent who denied the averments made in the petition. the petition was dismissed by the trial court, against which the present appeal has been filed by gurjit kaur. during the pendency of the appeal, on an application under section 24 of the hindu marriage act (c.m. no. 89-cii of 1991) appellant was granted maintenance of rs. 250/- per month vide order dated 19,4.1991, with effect from 14.3.1991, i.e. the date of filing of application, besides an amount of rs. 750/- as litigation expenses. admittedly, maintenance has not been paid by the respondent nor the respondent who is present in court is willing to pay the same. accordingly, i have no option but to strike off the defence of the respondent. it is so ordered. since the allegations of the appellant have gone unrebutted, the same are to be accepted as such. in view of the averment of the appellant that she has been maltreated by the respondent and there being no rebuttal to the allegations which have been supported on oath as well by her while appearing as her own witness, it stands proved that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce.3. consequently, this appeal is allowed and judgment of the trial court is set aside, and the marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved. decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

V.K. Jhanji, J.

1. At the request made by counsel for the parties, FAO No. 129 M of 1990 is taken on Board.

2. Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce was filed by the appellant against her husband, Amar Singh on the ground of cruelty. She had stated in her petition that after the marriage, respondent on one or other pretext gave her beatings. She was forced to do manual labour from morning till evening, and sometimes, she was neglected to be provided with daily meals. She alleged that she tolerated all the excesses of the respondent so that the brother of the respondent, with whom the elder sister of petitioner-appellant was married, may also not treat her sister likewise. She alleged that in the month of June 1987, she was giving merciless beatings by the respondent and was turned out of the house. A Panchayat was taken to the respondent to request him to rehabilitate her but it proved futile. Petition was contested by the respondent who denied the averments made in the petition. The petition was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the present appeal has been filed by Gurjit Kaur. During the pendency of the appeal, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (C.M. No. 89-CII of 1991) appellant was granted maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month vide order dated 19,4.1991, with effect from 14.3.1991, i.e. the date of filing of application, besides an amount of Rs. 750/- as litigation expenses. Admittedly, maintenance has not been paid by the respondent nor the respondent who is present in Court is willing to pay the same. Accordingly, I have no option but to strike off the defence of the respondent. It is so ordered. Since the allegations of the appellant have gone unrebutted, the same are to be accepted as such. In view of the averment of the appellant that she has been maltreated by the respondent and there being no rebuttal to the allegations which have been supported on oath as well by her while appearing as her own witness, it stands proved that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce.

3. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and judgment of the trial Court is set aside, and the marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.