- (1.)This writ petition has been filed by petitioner for quashment of demand notice dtd. 22/1/2022 (Annexure P/10) seeking to recover the amount of Rs.8,47,800.00 within seven days, failing which, it was stated, the post dated cheques deposited by the petitioner shall be encashed by the respondents. Further, a prayer was made that the action of respondents in demanding the installments for the contract of holding auction of Weekly Open Market (Saptaahik Baithaki Bazaar), Barghat for the period from 1/4/2021 to 31/3/2022, be declared as illegal and agreement dtd. 19/8/2021 executed between the parties be declared as void having been frustrated by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 56 of the Contract Act. A prayer is also made to restrain the respondents from encashing the 10 post dated cheques deposited by the petitioner with them.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order dtd. 23/2/2021 Signature Not Verified SAN passed in W.P. 2531/2021 (Yugal Kishore Choudhary vs. State of M.P. and Others) wherein the similar issue has come up for consideration before this Court and the Court has directed thus:-
"The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 published a notice inviting bid for auction of Weekly Animal Market (Saturday and Sunday Market) and Sitting MArket (Saturday Market), Barghat for the period 1/4/2020 to 31/3/2021. The petitioner submitted his bid of Rs.1,43,10,000.00 which being the highest, contract was awarded to the petitioner. He deposited Rs.5,00,000.00 as the earnest money and 25% of the tender amount i.e. Rs.35,77,500.00. The respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner on 7/3/2020 calling upon him to deposit the stamps for execution of contract and also to deposit 10 post dated cheques in favour of respondent No.3 for installment of contract. It was, however, in the meantime, on account of onset of pandemic of Corona virus (COVID-19), the respondent No.4 i.e. the Collector, Seoni issued a public notice on 15/3/2020 restricting public gathering, public events in Seoni district for curbing the spread of pandemic. The Government of India also issued total lockdown in the whole of the country w.e.f. 24/3/2020 which continued in difference phases. The respondent No.3, however, issued a notice to the petitioner on 8/5/2020 again calling upon the petitioner to execute the contract and submit 10 post dated cheques. The petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 13/5/2020 contending that he should not be forced to execute the contract and to deposit the post dated cheques because on account of the total lockdown he may not be in a position to run the market. Thereafter the petitioner again submitted a representation on 26/6/2020 and 7/9/2020. The respondent No.3 again on 28/9/2020 issued a fresh notice threatening that if the petitioner failed to execute the contract within three days, his earnest money should be forfeited and his post dated cheques shall be encashed. Under compulsion, therefore, the petitioner executed the agreement with respondent No.3 for the period from 1/4/2020 to 31/3/2021 on 30/9/2020. The respondent No.3 vide notification dtd. 1/10/2020 announced opening of weekly cattle market from 3/10/2020 with the exercise of proper COVID protocol. The respondent No.3, however, thereafter on 18/12/2020 issued the impugned notice Annexure P-15 for recovery of the amount of installments for the period when the market was closed due to pandemic of COVID-19 and even the agreement was not executed.

Signature Not Verified SAN Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the country had passed through six phases of the lockdown from the date when the auction was conducted and before the date of execution of the agreement, the petitioner could not have started the weekly animal market. In such a situation, the force majeure event would be attracted. Therefore, as per the principles of Sec. 56 of the Contract Act, the contract period from 1/4/2020 to 2/10/2020 should be treated as void, being frustrated due to the force majeure circumstances. It is submitted that the respondents cannot willy-billy demand the installments for the aforesaid period, inasmuch as, they cannot encash 10 post dated cheques and forfeit the earnest money deposited by the petitioner.

Having regard to the submissions made aforesaid but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to require the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.3 placing on record all the relevant orders of lockdown and different restrictions put in place by the State Government as well as the Central Government making it virtually impossible for the petitioner to run the market and demand waiver of the period for which it was not possible for him to run the market, inasmuch as, even the agreement was not executed. The respondent No.3 after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the grievance of the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of submission of such representation along with the copy of this order.

Till decision is taken by the respondent No.3, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner."

(3.)Similar issue is also involved in this case. Considering the aforesaid order passed in W.P. No.2531/2021 will apply mutatis mutandis in the present case. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the respondent No.1 within a period of one month form the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and in turn respondent No.1 is directed to decide the same after considering the circumstances and the documents produced in this regard and pass a speaking order.
Certified copy as per rules.