S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Prithvi Raj Pungalia is seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from realling a sum of Rs. 1,03,957/ -from the petitioner on account of compensation in pursuance of the order dated May 6, 1972 passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R.;), Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent Nos. 2 herein, and the order dated June 1, 1972 passed by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R;),Jaipur, respondent No 3 herein.
(2.) THE petitioner is a contractor and he had submitted a tender dated December 14, 1970 for Rs. 9,87,592/ - for widening the National Highway No. 8 from Km 104, 55 to 140 The said tender of the petitioner was accepted by the Governor of Rajasthan on February 4, 1971 and respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 15 -2 -1971, informed the petitioner t tat his tender had been accepted 'on behalf of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan' and the petitioner was directed to start the work at once and complete the same within a period of 18 months. In the said letter which was signed by respondent no 3 'on behalf of the Governor of State of Rajasthan', it was stated that the letter of acceptance together with the tender submitted by the petitioner constituted the contract agreement between the petitioner and the Governor of the State of Rajasthan. to appears that due to some reason or the other, the petitioner could not complete the work within the time stipulated in the contract and respondent No. 2, by his letter dated May 6, 1972, informed the petitioner that action would betaken against him in accordance with Clauses 2 and 3(c) of the contract agreement. Respondent No. 3 by his letter dated June 1, 1972, informed the petitioner that under the contract the date of stipulated completion was 14th August, 1972 and the petitioner was required to maintain the pro rata progress of Rs. 54,866/ - per month and on that basis he should have completed work worth Rs. 7,68,126/ - by the end of March, 1972 as against which the petitioner had executed work worth Rs. 4, 16, 112/ -only and that inspire of several notices which have been issued to him in the past, the petitioner had failed to accelerate the work and that the Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R.;), Rajasthan had sanctioned levy of compensation of Rs. 1,03,957/ - on the petitioner and had ordered to get the work executed at the petitioner's cost and risk under Clause 3 (c) of the agreement Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 6th May, 1972 and 1st June, 1972 the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first contention urged by Shri H.M. Parekh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition is that no valid contract had been entered into by the petitioner with the State Government and that the levy of the recovery of the Compensation amount of Rs. 1,03,957/ - from the petitioner under the impugned orders was, therefore, illegal The learned Counsel has submitted that Article 299(1) of the Constitution prescribes the made in which a contract can be entered into on behalf of the State and that the said provisions are mandatory in nature and any contract which does not comply with the requirements of the said Article is void and unenforceable According to the learned Counsel, Article 299(1) of the Constitution prescribes the following requisites for a valid contract: (a) It must be expressed to be made by the President, or by the Governor of she State, as the case may be, (b) it must be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor as the case may be, and (c) its execution must be by such persons and in such manner as the President or the Governor may direct or authorize.
(3.) THE contend n of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case the following conditions have not been complied with namely: (i) the executive Engineer was not a person competent to execute the contract on behalf of the Governor c f the State of Rajasthan; (ii) no formal document embodying the terms of agreement has been executed; and (iii) the contract was not expressed to be made by the Governor of the State of Rajasthan. ;