Decided on May 01,1997

The State Of H.P. Respondents


SURINDER SARUP,J. - (1.)This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri V. K. Ahuja, District Judge, Nahan dated 02.03.1989, whereby the appeal of the defendant -respondent State has been accepted and the suit of the plaintiff -appellant has been dismissed, thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Pritam Singh, Sub Judge, 1st Class dated 30.10.1986 whereby the suit was decreed for damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/ - with costs and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its institution till the realisation of the entire amount
(2.)The facts, giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff had set up an agricultural unit, namely, M/s Jaswal Ban Udyog, with the consent, guidance and control of department of Industries through its representative - defendant No. 2, on the assurance that Babar Grass shall be supplied by the government and its finished goods were also to be purchased by the said department. It was further pleaded that in the year 1980, Babar Grass was supplied to the plaintiff valuing Rs.4000/ - and the payment was directly made by defendant No. 2 to the Forest Department and the said Babar Grass was of inferior quality and the plaintiff protested and showed the said grass to defendant No. 2 as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur. However, he was given assurance that the finished goods would be purchased by the Government at the rate of Rs.200A per quintal and as such the grass was accepted by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the said raw material was converted by the plaintiff into finished goods and he approached defendant No. 2 to lift the same, but though the assurance was given, the goods were not purchased by the Govt. and as such the goods decayed in the premises of the plaintiff and could not be disposed of. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff could not pay the installment to the Bank and he suffered loss of Rs.4000/ - as the price of the grass Rs.500/ -, by way of freight and Rs.150/ - for loading and unloading and Rs.8000/ - spent for conversion of raw material into finished goods. In all, the plaintiff claimed Rs.16, 650/ - by way of damages alongwith interest.
(3.)In the written statement, the defendant took up the plea that the unit was set up by the plaintiff with the prior permission of defendant No. l in lieu of the Scheme, but no assurance was given to him and the defendants were assisting him in running his unit. It was stated that the plaintiff voluntarily purchased the grass from the Forest Department and no assurance, whatsoever, was given by the defendants in contravention of Article 299 of the Constitution of India and even if such an assurance had been given by defendant No.2, defendants are not bound by the same and the said officer is personally liable, who has not been impleaded as party.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.