- (1.) State of Punjab, defendant-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1978 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Patiala by which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon. Facts giving rise to the present, appeal are as under:- On 30.4.1974 fishing rights pertaining to notified waters of districts Patiala, Sangrur, Bhatinda and Bhupinder Sagar, Patiala were auctioned by the State of Punjab through its officers of the -Fisheries Department. Plaintiff was the highest bidder of Rs. 55000/- for Patiala, Sangrur and Bhatinda districts and Rs. 1000/- for Bhupinder Sagar in Patiala district. Plaintiff was required to deposit Rs. 19000/- against the bid of Rs. 55000/- Accordingly, he deposited, the amount on the day of auction with the Fisheries Department. On the same day, Plaintiff was required to deposit Rs. 1000/- with the Fisheries Department for fishing rights pertaining to Bhupinder Sagar district Patiala. Public auction was for the year 1974-75 with effect from 1.9.1974 to 1.8.1975. The auction held on 30.8.1974 were to be approved by the Government of Punjab and ordinarily it should have been done within the reasonable time but the same was not done upto middle of November, 1974. On 11.11.1974, plaintiff sent a telegram to the Head of Department of Fisheries and other officers asking for the return of earnest money as approval to the bid had not been given by the State. Thereafter, another telegram was issued on 22.11.1974 asking for the refund of money. Ultimately on 28.11.1974, plaintiff repudiated the contract finally and informed the State Government accordingly. The approval of the bid was received by the Fisheries Department from the Punjab Government on 6.1.1975 and the same was conveyed to the plaintiff on 8.1.1975. As per terms and conditions of auction, plaintiff was required to deposit 2% as security amount which he failed to deposit. The State Government treated this to be a breach of terms and conditions of the auction held on 30.8.1974; forfeited the refund of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- which had been deposited by the plaintiff with the State. Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest and for rescinding the order conveyed to him vide letter No. 972 dated 11.4.1975, vide which he was blacklisted for a period of five years.
(2.) The suit was resisted by the State of Punjab. In their written statement, they raised some preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit; suit not being properly valued for the purposes of Court fee; legality and validity of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and plaintiff having no cause of action. No time-limit. was claimed to have been fixed for obtaining the approval of the State Government in respect of the auction held on 30.8.1974. The deposit of money of Rs. 20,000/- was admitted. The fact that the period of licence for catching the fish was to be operative from 1.9.1974 to 31.8.1975 was admitted. The plea taken by the State on merits was that the highest bid offered by the plaintiff for the year 1974-75 being lower than the average income for the last three years the case was required to be approved by the State Government and it was submitted for approval on 31.8.1974 and the State Government conveyed the approval on 6.1.1975 and it was passed on to the plaintiff-respondent on 8.1.1975. The factum of telegram sent by the plaintiff was admitted though the correctness of the contents of the same were denied. It was further pleaded that the bidder had no right to retract from the contract for whatsoever reasons and, therefore, no refund could be claimed nor was any compensation/damages available and permissible under Rule 8(1) (2) of the Notification dated 1.8.1966. The plaintiff-respondent was charged with having failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract on receipt of the necessary sanction which was conveyed to him on 8.1.1975 and thus was liable to be black-listed and for forfeiture of the security amount.
(3.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable OPD (2) Whether the suit is not properly valued and full, court-fee has not been paid OPD (3) Whether the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. is not legal and valid, if so its effect OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action (5) What is the effect of non-depositing 2% of security referred to in para No. 3 of the written statement OPD (6) Whether the period of lease was to be from Ist of September or from the date of the sanction of the bid in either case lasting upto 31st of August, of the following year as alleged OPD (7) Whether the plaintiff withdrew his offer lawfully OPP (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the earnest money amounting to Rs. 2000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% OPP (9) Whether the plaintiff is a defaulter If so its effect OPD, (10) Relief. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and consequently the suit was decreed.;