SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal. His suit for declaration to the effect that demand of the defendant Market Committee to recover an amount of Rs. 40,500/- from the plaintiff is illegal, unlawful and unjustified, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the aforesaid suit on the averments that he, being the highest bidder, had taken a contract from the defendant Committee on 23.3.1999, for removal of Chhilka and other waste of agriculture products from the New Anaj Mandi, Taraori, District Karnal, for an amount of Rs. 81,000/- for the year 1999-2000. Out of the said amount, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 40,500/- at the time of entering into the said agreement. Subsequently, on 6.10.1999, the defendant Committee issued instructions to the Commission Agents of New Anaj Mandi, Taraori for not cleaning the agriculture products with the help of electric/hand fans. It is the case of the plaintiff that due to the non-use of the electric fan, no waste or Chhilka came out from the agriculture produce, and consequently he suffered the loss, therefore, the defendant Committee is not entitled to recover the remaining amount. The defendant Committee contested the suit inter-alia denying the allegation of loss suffered by the plaintiff by issuance of the said instructions. It is stated that the tender was given to the plaintiff for removal/discharge of the Chhilka and other waste material from the market committee yard. He was not required to clean the agriculture produce of the farmers, which was to be cleaned by the farmers themselves at their own expenses. It is stated that those instructions were issued to prevent the air pollution being created by use of those electric fans. It is the case of the defendant Committee that by not using the electric fans for cleaning the agriculture produce, no loss was caused to the plaintiff, as he was only required to remove the Chhilka and other waste from the market yard.
(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, both the courts below have dismissed suit of the plaintiff, while coming to the conclusion that since the plaintiff had deposited half the amount to the tune of Rs. 40,500/- on the very day of contract, the defendant Committee is within its right to recover the remaining amount of the contract.;