- (1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the division bench of the M. P. High court at Jabalpur made on 24/1/1979 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 370 of 1971.
(2.) The admitted facts are that the appellant-firm had entered into an agreement with the government for purchase of Tendu leaves in Unit No. 14, Chowki in South Division for three years ending on 31/12/1970 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 30/11/1968. One of the terms was that the lease is renewable every year. The lease commences from February 1 of the year and ends on January 31 of the next year. In this case, the agreement of the appellant commenced from 2/3/1968 and it was to end on 31/1/1969. As per the terms of the agreement, the appellant had to opt for renewal within 15 days prior to December 31 and the leases were to be renewed within 15 days from the date of the issue and was to be accepted by the Department. The admitted position is that the appellant had offered for renewal on 7/12/1968. It is seen from the record that the government had accepted the offer on 31/1/1969 and communication was sent to the appellant on 7-2-1969; but he refused to receive the same. On 9/2/1969, the appellant had sent a telegram withdrawing from the offer of the renewal. Since the appellant had refused to accept the communication, it was sent by the Divisional Officer on 12/2/1969 and was received by the appellant on 17/2/1969. Consequently, a letter was sent on 20/5/1970 calling upon the appellant for payment of Rs. 93,821.23 towards the loss caused by the appellant due to non-execution of the renewal deed and also for non-collection of the Tendu leaves for the period since it was not sold to any other agency. The appellant challenged it by filing a writ petition in the High court. The High court in the impugned order dismissed the same holding that before the appellant had withdrawn the offer, the government had already accepted the offer of the appellant and, therefore, he was liable to pay the damages.
(3.) Shri S. V. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant, raised twofold contentions. Firstly, since the communication was not sent to the appellant before 31st January, the deadline, the appellant was entitled to withdraw from the offer. He had duly withdrawn it on 9/2/1969 by issuing a telegram to all concerned. Therefore, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability for the resultant loss. We find no force in the contention.;