- (1.) B. M. Lal, J. This is a reference made by Hon'ble Chief Justice under Chapter VIII, Rule 3 of the Rules of the Court in view of the difference of opinion on the reasonings and conclusions in the Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Basu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. C. Agarwal in the aforesaid writ peti tion.
(2.) THE short facts leading to this refer ence are as under: (a) In pursuance of a Public Notice dated 16-1-1995 issued under Chapter VI of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, petitioner Ram Bishwash and others including respondent No. 3 applied for grant of mining permits in respect of sand/morum. THEy offered their bids THE bid of respondent No. 3 was found highest as such it was accepted and a mining permit was granted to him. It is this grant of permit in the name of respondent No. 3 that has been challenged by means of this petition on the ground that the respondent No. 3 being an employee of U. P. State Mineral Development Corporation (for short the corporation) was legally incapable of entering into any business contract during the*course of his employment. (b) THE writ petition was listed before the aforesaid Division Bench of this Court. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having given thoughtful considerations to the facts and circumstances of the case one Hon'ble Member of the Division Bench arrived at the opinion that the permit in question deserves to be quashed and the other Hon'ble member opined that there is no cause to quash the per mit in question. Both the Hon'ble Judges recorded their respective opinion separately. (c) Thus, under the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad referred to above, aforesaid writ peti tion was listed before this Bench. Heard learned Counsel for the par ties, perused the record and opinions recorded by respective Hon'ble Judges forming the Division Bench. The root question involved in this petition is as to whether an employee of the Corporation is capable of entering into any business contract during the course of his employ ment in the Corporation? Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 being an employee of the Corporation is dis qualified during the course of this employ ment for entering into any business con tract by virtue of Rule 89 of U. P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Employee Service Rules, 1978 (for short the Rules) which expressly prohibits the employee of the Corporation from engag ing directly or indirectly in any trade or business or under taking any employment and as such the contract in question is clearly hit by Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel further con tended that the Court regards the business contracts entered into by the employees during the course of their employment as immoral and opposed to public policy and, therefore, the contract in question is void ab initio under Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act. Learned Counsel for the respon dent No. 3 contended that the contract in question may be in violation of Rule 89 of the Rules and for violation of Rule 89, the respondent No. 3 may be held liable for departmental action but it would not render the contract itself null and void.;