Mahinder Narain, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs Susheci Saran and M/s. Cine Publicity Cell filed the present suit in this court on 14-8-1978 for the recovery of Rs. 17,90,731. 28 p. ( 2 ) AS is apparent from I. A. No. 2076 of 1979, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint was deficiently stamped. In this application I. A. No. 2076 of 1979, a prayer was made that for the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint by adding a prayer that he be permitted to sue as an indigent person By an order dated 23-8-1979, the application for amendment was allowed subject to just exceptions. The suit, therefore, became a petition under Order 33 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 10-9-1979 notices were issued to the Collector and the Government Pleader. Thereafter an-enquiry was held to find out whether the plaintiff is an indigent person. The Indigent Petition was numbered as I P. A. No. 13 of 1979. ( 3 ) IN connection with the Indigent Petition No. 13 of 1977, on 15-9-1981 it was stat ed before th e Deputy Registrar that admission/denial of each others documents have been completed and exhibit marks have been given to the admitted documents. ( 4 ) ON 25-9-1981, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed with respect to the indifferent petition :- 1. Whether there is a proper application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to sue as indigent person ? 2. Whether the petition has not been presented in accordance with law? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to sue as indigent person ? ( 5 ) IN support of pauperism, the plaintiff led evidence. By an order dated 10-12-1981. this Court (H L. Anand, J.) granted leave to the applicant to sac as an indigent person. By the very same order, under the provisions Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the State of Bihar which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, was permitted to be sued in this Court. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the plaintiff is being I. A. No. 1017 of 1982. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the plaintiff is being I. A. No. 1017 of 1982. By order dated 13-5-1982 I. A. No. 1017 of 1982 was allowed, and the amended plaint which was annexed to the application was taken on record. Liberty was given to the defendants to file their amended written statement. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their amended written statement on 3-7-1982, and defendant No. 3 filed the amended written statement on 6-7-1982. ( 7 ) THE question of there being cause of action against the Union of India was, however, left open. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER on 6-12-1982. on pleadings of the parties, the following. issues were framed:- 297 1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit ? 2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? 3. Whether there was a subsisting contract expressed or implied tor the display and publicity between the plaintiff and any of the defendants, after 8th June, 1973 onwards ? 4. If issue No. 3 is held in favour of the plaintiff, then which one of the defendants is liable to pay for the said display and publicity ? 5. Have the defendants or any one of them enjoyed any benefit by display and publicity conducted by the plantiff after 8th June, 1973. If so, is that defendant bound to make compensation to the plaintiff? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages as alleged ? 7. Relief. ( 9 ) THE case was fixed for recording of plaintiff s evidence on 14-1-1986. The plantiff examined two witnesses. He examined himself as Public Witness 1. and Mr. Ram Sarup as Public Witness 2. Statements of both these witnesses recorded in Court are reproduced below:- Statement of Sh. Susheel Saran, S/o. Sh. Satya Saran, age 50, r/o D-47. Old Raj Nagar Ghaziabad, on S. A. . . . I am the sole proprietor of plaintiff No. 2 firm. The said firm was, carrying on the business of Mass Media on publicity. On 22nd November, 1972, defendant No. I entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the painting and display of 1045 kiosks for 3 months i. e. from 8-3-1973 to 7-6-1973 on a rental of Rs. l5. 00 per kiosk per month. The said firm was, carrying on the business of Mass Media on publicity. On 22nd November, 1972, defendant No. I entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the painting and display of 1045 kiosks for 3 months i. e. from 8-3-1973 to 7-6-1973 on a rental of Rs. l5. 00 per kiosk per month. The terms and conditions of the cont-ract are contained in this document D. 4. Under this contract the plaintiffs were required to paint and display various slogans pertaining to the family planning campaign in the State of Bihar. Defendant No. I was required to supply the slogans. Under the contract defendant No I was to supervise and inspect the display of slogans Defendant No. I carried out the inspection and during the months of May, June and July, 1973, and finally issued the certificate on 27-2-1974videexp. I. I was accompanying the inspecting staff of defendant No. I at the time of the inspection of the kiosk. Under the contract the defendant was required to make the payments. Q. Please explain as to how did you display the family planning compaign on kiosks ? A. I had fixed a 30" X 40" heavy tin plates in a heavy angle iron frame on the electric poles in the towns of the area allotted in the State of Bihar under the contract. The cost of each kiosk was about Rs. 450. 00. 298 I was also paying a sum of Rs. 20. 00 for painting a slogan for each kiosk for every year. For the maintenance of those kiosks I was also maintaining thestaff. I was spending about Rs. 3,000. 00 for my staff at Patna. I used to cover up the entire area on my jeep. I bad a camp office at Hari Mansion, Road No. 39, Anisa Bagh, Patna and from there I was supervising the work. I have been maintaining the record of the expenses incurred in the fixing of kiosks and the amount received from the defendants. Unfortunately, the said record was swept away during the unprecedented floods in Patna in the year 1975. By force, I had to leave all my material in the camp office. After the floods receded and when I returned back to my camp office I found that even my jeep was stolen There was no trace of any material or records at the camp office. By force, I had to leave all my material in the camp office. After the floods receded and when I returned back to my camp office I found that even my jeep was stolen There was no trace of any material or records at the camp office. I lodged a report with the police station about the missing of my jeep. My contract with defendant No. I expired on 8-6-1973. On 14/25-6-1973, the Central Government informed the State Government of Bihar to take over 2000 kiosks from defendant No. I for effective continuity of the campaign. Out of the 2000 kiosks, 1045 kiosks belonged to me. A copy of the letter Ex. D. 2 was also endorsed to me requiring me to execute a fresh contract and persue the matter with the officers of the State Government. In compliance with the said directions contained in Ex. D. 2, I approached the Mass Education Media Officer of Deptt. of Family Planning, Bihar. The said officer appreciated my work and did not ask me to discontinue the work. The officer informed me that they are going to write to the Central Govt. for further funds for payment of my outstanding dues. Ex. D. 5 is the letter dated 31st January, 1974 which was written by late Sh. Kedar Pandey, the then Health Minister. Bihar to Dr. Karan Singh, the then Health Minister. Govt. of India By this letter the State Govt. accepted my dues to the extent of Rs. 2 25 lacs. In response to the said request, Dr. Karan Singh on 26th February, 1974 asked the State Govt. to meet the expenditure out of the savings. The copy of the said letter is Ex. D. 6. In response to the said letter the State Govt. again informed the Centre vide letter the dated 17-7-1974, Ex. D. 7 that the State Govt. is unable to meet the expenditure from their saving. They requested the Central Govt. to allocate a further sum of Rs. 3 lacs to clear the dues of the plaintiff. The Central Govt. however, insisted that the State Govt. should settle the outstanding bill of the plaintiff by following the procedure which has been indicated their earlier letter. A copy of the said letter is Ex. D. 9. In spite of these specific instructions of the Central Govt. The State Govt. failed to clear my dues. The Central Govt. however, insisted that the State Govt. should settle the outstanding bill of the plaintiff by following the procedure which has been indicated their earlier letter. A copy of the said letter is Ex. D. 9. In spite of these specific instructions of the Central Govt. The State Govt. failed to clear my dues. In this behalf then I met the Union Health Minister, Dr. Karan Singh, along with Sh. Ram Sarup, the then M. P The Hon ble Minister instructed Mrs. Saral Grewal, the then Joint Secretary and Commissioner, Family Planning to write to the State Govt. for payment of the dues to the plaintiff. The copy of the said letter is Ex. D. 10. After sometime I met Sh. Bindeshwari Dubey, the then Health Minister of Bihar along with Sh. Ram Sarup, the then M. P. and explained him the position. The Hon ble Minister called the Director (Health) and Joint Director, Family Planniag and discussed the subject in my presence. The Minister passed the order on my application for the payment of my dues at an early date. After passing the order Sh. Vindeswari Dubey handed over my representation dated 299 21-8-75 to me. The order was passed by Sh. Vindeswari Dubey on 24. 8. 75 in my presence and I identify his signatures on the photo copy of the representation. The said document is marked Ex. F. W. I/i. The order of the Hon ble Minister was then given to the Director of State, Family Planning Affairs. In spite of the clearing directions of the Hon ble Minister the Department did not pay me the dues. I then approached the Secretary (Health), Govt. of India and made the representation vide my letter dated. 30. 3. 78, copy of which isx. Public Witness 1/2. Sh. S. WOak, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India then wrote a letter on 7-4-78 to the Secretary (Health ). Bihar, to settle my duc at their own level. Copy of the said letter is Ex. D. 12. In spite of the clear direction from the Govt. of India, the State Govt, did not pay me the dues - I approached the then Minister for Law and Justice, Govt. of India, and gave the representation, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 1/3. On my representation, Sh. Narsing the then. D. 12. In spite of the clear direction from the Govt. of India, the State Govt, did not pay me the dues - I approached the then Minister for Law and Justice, Govt. of India, and gave the representation, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 1/3. On my representation, Sh. Narsing the then. Minister lor petroleum and Chemicals wrote to the then Health Minister Sh. Ravi Ray to gel the whole matter examined in detail and settle the Shatter. The copy of the said letter dated 10-5-79 is Ex. P. 10. I also met Sh. A. Chandrashekhar, the then Additional Sect. with the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, New Delhi, In compliance with my request he wrote letter to Sh. Ram Sarup M. P. that instructions have already been sent to the State Govt. that the savings from any other Head be utilised for the payment of my dues. Copy of the said letter is Ex. D 14. I also met several officers of the State as well as the Central Govt. but in. spite of my best efforts my dues were not paid. Before the filing of the present suit I served the defendants with a registered logal notice, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 1/4. The postal receipts are Ex. Public Witness 1/5 and Public Witness 1/6 The AD. cards are Ex, P. 9 and Public Witness 1/7. During the course of my exchange of correspondence with the Central as well as State Government, I submitted my Bills Ex. Public Witness 1/8 and Public Witness 1/9 for a sum of Rs. 10,58,49922 plus Rs. . 62,700. 00 printing charges to the centre. But the same bills were returned to me vide Ex. P. 5. I also received letter a letter from the Joint Secretary. Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs on 14-3-78 Ex. P. 6. I also wrote a letter to Shri Raj Narain, the then Health Minister on 27-03-78 vide Ex. P. 7. On the same day he endorsed my letter to Chief Minister, Bihar for taking appropriate action. Fx P. 8. is the reply dated 26-5-78 of the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India to my notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code. I also wrote a letter to Shri Raj Narain, the then Health Minister on 27-03-78 vide Ex. P. 7. On the same day he endorsed my letter to Chief Minister, Bihar for taking appropriate action. Fx P. 8. is the reply dated 26-5-78 of the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India to my notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code. Inspite of my best efforts and representations to the authorities concerned, yet I have not been paid my dues, as a result of which I suffered mental injury. I could not properly educate my children marry my daughter who is of marriageable age. I also suffered humiliation in my family as well as relations and friends. I wanted to start my own publicity business around the world in colloboration with Japan s firm M/s. Sakura Maru, which I could not undertake because of non-payment of my dues by the defendant The record of this colloboration was also washed away in the floods at Patna in the year 1975. I have also claimed interest @ 20% P. A. on the outstanding. During the course of the pendency of the 300 present suit, the kiosks which I had affixed on the electric poles were not found. I have already paid the salary to my staff till 30-9-77 after serving them with a three months notice. I had taken loans from my friends and relations to meet the expenditure of salary to my staff and other expenses. I have also sold my family jewellery to pay off the use which have accrued on me due to the non payment of the dues from the defendants. I have also sold -my Car. In fact, I have become a pauper and is not able to meet both ends meet and the requirement of my family. 1. belong to a respectable family of Bihar My elder brothers are very well educated and are posted in high positions and my other relations are settled in America. Even their children are getting best education. I and my family have suffered because of non-payment of my legal dues from the defendants. At this stage, Sh. Sudarshan Misra Advocate for defendants I to 3 have put in appearance and seeks time to cross-examine the witness. The exparte proceedings initiated against the defendants are hereby set aside. For cross-examination of Public Witness I the case to come up on 16. 01. 86. At this stage, Sh. Sudarshan Misra Advocate for defendants I to 3 have put in appearance and seeks time to cross-examine the witness. The exparte proceedings initiated against the defendants are hereby set aside. For cross-examination of Public Witness I the case to come up on 16. 01. 86. The date 15. 1. 86 stands cancelled. R. O. and A. C. JANUARY 14,1986 JUDGE 16-8-86 Public Witness 1. S. NO. 1421/81. ( 10 ) SH. Susheel Saran (recalled for further examination-in-chief) on S. A. In the year 1974 the Bank Rate of lending was about 12% P. A. The prevalent rate of interest on bank loan is 18%. I had lodged a police report for the theft of my Jeep on 4-4-77. Tilt today the Jeep has not been recovered by the Police authorities. I bad sold about 62 Tolas of Gold to pay off the salaries of my staff and meeting the painting charges etc. I had entered into a contract with the Bihar Electricity Board for fixing the Kiosks on the electric poles. That contract is still in subsistence. ( 11 ) CROSS-EXAMINATION by Sh. Sudarshan Misra for detendants I to 3. It is incorrect to suggest that the kiosks which I had fixed on the electric poles were inspected by the staff of the Government in the month of May and June 1973. The defendants have issed a certificate of inspection after 8th June 1973. Ex. P. l + is the said certificate. It is correct that I was required to fabricate the kiosks as per the terms and conditions of contract. Those kiosks always remain my property. I was maintaining the regular accounts of contract but unfortunately the whole of my accounts were washed away in flood in 1975 at my Camp Office in Patna. It is incorrect to suggest that my records as well as Jeep was not lost in the flood or that I did not report the matter to the authorities It is correct that after the expiry of the contract on 8-6-73 the defendants 1 to 3 did not enter into a fresh contract. It is correct that the bills for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and the other for a sum of Rs. 62,000. 00 and odd were submitted by me to the defendant No. 3 301 on 6-12-77 after defendants No. 4 refused to make the payment. It is correct that the bills for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and the other for a sum of Rs. 62,000. 00 and odd were submitted by me to the defendant No. 3 301 on 6-12-77 after defendants No. 4 refused to make the payment. The said bills arc Ex. Public Witness 1/8 and Public Witness 1/9. ( 12 ) CROSS-EXAMINATION by counsel for defendant No. 4. It is correct that there was no contract of the plaintiff with defendant No. 4. R. O. and A. C. JUDGE JANUARY 16,1986. Public Witness 2. ( 13 ) SHRI Ram Sarup S/o Sh. Raghu Rai, age 61 years, self employed, M-56, Saket, New Delhi on S. A. With regard to the claim of the plaintiff I had met the then Minister of Health, Govt. of India in the year 1976. I had written letter on behalf of the plaintiff to Mr. Kondaji Bassapa, the then Dy. Minister of Health in Government of India The reply which was received by me is Ex. D. 8. In response to my letter Sh. Bassappa had also written a letter to the then Health Minister of State of Bihar vide Ex. D. 9. I had also represented to Dr. Karan Singh, the then Health Minister, Govt of India. In my presence Dr. Karan Singh had called for his Health Secretary and had directed him that a letter be written to State of Bihar for settlement of the plaintiff s claim. Ex. D. 10. is the said letter which was written by Ms. Saria Grewal to the then Health Commissioner, State of Bihar. I had also visited Patna in the year 1975-1976. There I had noticed the kiosks fixed on the electric poles displayed by the plaintiff. On the request of the plaintiff I had also met Sh. Bindeshwari Dubfey, the Chief Minister of Bihar. I had give him the representation Ex. Public Witness 1/1. I know the family affairs of the plaintiff. ( 14 ) CROSS-EXAMINATION by Sh. Sudershan Misra for defendants I to 3. During my meetings with ,the Central Ministers nobody assured that the Central Government is prepared to pay the dues. ( 15 ) CROSS-EXAMINATION by counsel for defendant No. 4. The money is always asked for the Department but sometimes the representatives have also to be made to the higher authorities. Chief Minister is not personally responsible to make the payment. During my meetings with ,the Central Ministers nobody assured that the Central Government is prepared to pay the dues. ( 15 ) CROSS-EXAMINATION by counsel for defendant No. 4. The money is always asked for the Department but sometimes the representatives have also to be made to the higher authorities. Chief Minister is not personally responsible to make the payment. It is only the Department with whom the contract is entered into make the payment, if any due. R. O. and A. C. JANUARY 16,1986 JUDGE ( 16 ) THE plaintiff closed his evidence on 16-1-1986. The partics were thereafter directed to apper before the Deputy Rpgistrar lor fixing dates for recording evidence of defendants, and 18th to 20th November, 1987 were fixed for recording the evidence of the defendants. ( 17 ) THE plaintiff thereafter moved two applications, one was 1. A No 1192 of 1986 for production of documents detailed therein from defendant No. 3, and another was 1. A. 1193 of 1986 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for directions to make interim payment of rupees 3 lacs. ( 18 ) ON a statetaent made before the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 10-3-1987, the counsel for defendants No. I to 3 stated that the requisite files sought to be produced in court by I. A. 1192 of 1986 shall be produced by defendants No. I to 3. I. A 1192 of 1986 was,. however, withdrawn on 13-10-1987. ( 19 ) ON 19-11-1987; statement was made by counsel for, defendants No. I to 3 that he did not want to lead any evidence. On 20-11-1987 counsel for defendant No. 4 made a statement that he did not wish to lead his evidence. Inasmuch as the defendants have led no oral evidence, and parties have filed documents which have been exhibit marked, it is desirable in the facts and circumstances of the case to reproduce the documents which have been exhibit, marked. As some of the documents were in Hindi, their translations are being reproduced in this judgment. Ex. P. 1 : no. 65/4/72-OPV/da Dated 27-2-1974. M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, Hari Mansion, Road no.-39. Gardani Bagh, Patna-2. As some of the documents were in Hindi, their translations are being reproduced in this judgment. Ex. P. 1 : no. 65/4/72-OPV/da Dated 27-2-1974. M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, Hari Mansion, Road no.-39. Gardani Bagh, Patna-2. Sub : Display of Family Planning Kiosks in Bihar onelectric poles dear Sirs, family Planning Kiosks on Electric poles displayed by you in Bihar were inspected by us in May and June, 1973 and were found in order at that time as per details given below : name of District No. of kiosks displayed 1. Saran 108) 2. Champaran 72) Inspected in May, 1973 3. Shahbad 247) 4. Gaya 150) Inspected in May, 1973 5. Ranchi 126) Inspected in June, 1973 6. Hazari Bagh 126) -do- 7. Sharsa 90) -do- 8. Purnia 126) -do- total 1045 kiosks yours faithfully, sd/- (A. Seshagiri Rao) production Manager (OP) for Director ex. P. 2. : august 26, l974 dear Shri Ram Swarup, kindly refer to your letter dated the 30th July, 1974 addressed to Dr. Karan Singh, Minister of Health and Family Planning, enclosing a representation of Messers Cine Publicity Cell regarding non-payment of their outstanding bill of Rs. 1,59,271. 60 by the Bihar Government. In this connection the Minister has also received a letter from Shri Lahtan Chaudbary, Minister of Health and Family Planning, Bihar. Since Dr. Karan Singh is presently in Bucharest leading the Indian Delegation, attending the World Population conference being held there, I take this opportunity of writing this letter to you. We have since advised the State Government that if adequate funds are not available under the MEM (Mass Education Media) activities, they can meet this expenditure from savings available under from any other head except for compensation . There should, therefore, be no difficulty for them to settle their outstanding bill. Yours sincerely, sd/- (Kondjai Bassappa) deputy Minister for Health and family Planning India, New Delhi ea. P. 3: to shri Susheci Saran, cinc Publicity Cell, d 47, Raj Nagar 7, ghaziabad. Dear Sir. Kindly refer to your letter dated 31-3;1977 addressed to Shri Raj narain, Central Minister for Health and Family Welfare. In this connection you are informed that your claim against the State Govt. has been carefully examined. It is regretted that the Govt. of India cannot interfere in the matter as it is. a matter between your firm and the State Govt. In this connection you are informed that your claim against the State Govt. has been carefully examined. It is regretted that the Govt. of India cannot interfere in the matter as it is. a matter between your firm and the State Govt. As such you may directly contact the State Govt. in this regard. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Anil Kumar Guha) publicity Officer 304 ex. P. 4: dated 11-4-1977. Dear Sir, your representation to the Hon ble Heath Minister Shri Raj Narain is received, and for juit action has been forwarded to the Under Secretary (Family Planning who will directly intimate you the result of the action. Please you may take the trouble to contact him. With good wishes. Yours faithfully sd/- (Ashwani Kumar) private Secretary to the miniater of Health and Family Planning, new Delhi. Shri Susheel Saran, cine Publicity Cell. D-47. Raj Nagar 7, ghaziabad ex. P. 5: 24th February, 1978, to m/s. Cine Publicity Cell. D-47, Raj Nagar 7, ghaziabad. Subject :--Family Welfare Publicity on Kiosks in the State of Bihar- return of Bills towards rental of 1045 kiosks. Dear Sirs, i am directed to refer to your letter dated 6-12-1977 addressed to Shri jagdambi Prasad Yadav, Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare, enclosing two bills-one for Rs. 10,58,499. 22 paise (Rupees ten lakhs fifty eight thousand four hundred ninety nine and paisc twenty two) only and the other for Rs. 62,700. 00 ps (. Rupees Sixty two thousand and seven hundred) only for display through kiosks in the State of Bihar and to state that no claim from you is found pending with this Ministry and as such your two bills are returned herewith in original. Yours faithfully, (S. W. OAK) under Secretary to the government of India 305 ex. P. 6; 14th March, 1978 shri Sushil Saran, cine Publicity Cell, d-47 Raj Nagar 7, Ghaziabad dear Sir, please refer to your application dated 27-2-1978 and addressed to Shri nar Singh, Minister of State for Law, Justice and Company Affairs, regarding payment of certain bills for the work undertaken by the Cell in respect of publicity for family planning in Bibar, before the end of the current financial year. I am directed to inform you that the said application has been forewarded (in original) to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare since that ministry is adm inistratively concerned with this matter, for such necessary action as is required, yours faithfully, sd/- (S. K. Rai) jt. Secy. and Legal Adviser ex. P. 7: 27th March, 1978 respected Netaji, after showing you the opinion of the Ministry of Law, on 19-1-1978 sbri Rama Nand Tiwari, M. P. wrote to you getting justice tome in the form of instructions from the Ministry of Family Planning. Govt. of India, to the govt. of State of Bihar to make payments to me. You arc requested that by writing to the State of Bihar take the trouble of getting justice to me and oblige me. With respect, yours affectionately sd/- (Susheel Saran) 27-3-1978 shri Raj Narain, min. of Health and Family Welfare, govt. oindia. Enclosed letter. 1. Copy of letter forwarded by Shri Ramanand Tiwari. 2. Copy of the letter written by Smt. Sarla Garewal to the Govt of state of Bihar. 306 ex. P-8: 26th May, 1978. Shri N. B. Sinha, advocate Supreme Court of India. 154, Aryanagar, ghaziabad. Subject:-Notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. for the payment of rs. 17,90. 738. 22 outstanding towards Rentals of 1045 kiosks and their painting charges tor carrying out Visual Publicity under Family Planning programme in Bihar, with interest and damages. Ref: Your registered letter dated 19th July, 1977 addressed to Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Del hi-1 and other. Sir, the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity has no outstanding payment to make of M/s Cine Cell, Patna towards the display of 1045 kiosks in Bihar carrying Family Planning messages under the order dated 22nd november, 1972 placed on your client expired on 8th June, 1973. The agency was clearly told that the contract could not be renewed by the said directorate after 8th June, 1973 and continu ation of display if any would be at their own risk. The id Directorate also wrote to the Mass Education and media Officer, Family Planning Bureau, Patna on 14th/25thune, 1973 informing him that it would not be possible to renew the contract and asking him to contact your client directly if need be. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to. The id Directorate also wrote to the Mass Education and media Officer, Family Planning Bureau, Patna on 14th/25thune, 1973 informing him that it would not be possible to renew the contract and asking him to contact your client directly if need be. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to. your client. Thereafter, neither the said officer nor your client contacted this Ministry, which in the circumstances, is not any wayliable as alleged in your notice. 2. Please note that there is no sum outsanding under the order dated 22nd November, 1972 due and payable to your client. Therefore, if you file a suit impleading the Govt. of India as defendant, you will be doing so at the risk of your client, who will be liable for costs. Yours faithfully, sd/- (I. K. Suri) deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India. Ex. P-10: may 10. 1979. Dear Shri Ray, i am enclosing a copy of the representation received from the Proprietor, cine Publicity Cell, Ghaziabad. The entire case has been explained in detail in the representation said to have been submitted to the Shah Chmmission (copy enclosed with the representation ). From the facts it appears to me that 307 the contract for family planning publicity which was , originally entered into by the DAVP with the Cine Publicity was continued by the Bihar Government. The Cine Publicity Cell continued to display its kiosks onthe tacitconcurrence of the Bihar Government that payments would be made to the firm after the matters were settled between the DAVP and the Bihar Govt. Although, this settlement did not come about, nevertheless, Cine Publicity are entitled for the payment;, for the services actually rendered. I shall be grateful if you could get the whole matter examined in detait and use your good offices with the Bihar Govt. and DAVP to settle this issue, a line in reply about the ultimate action taken in the matter will be very much appreciated. With kind regards, yours sincerely, sd/ (Nar Singh) minister of State for petroleum and Chemical New Delhi shri Rabi Ray, minister of Health A Family Welfare, govt of India, new Delhi. Ex. P. 11: 21-7-l979 shri Sushil Saran, cine Publicity Cell, d-47, Rajnagar-7, ghaziabad subject:-Family Planning Kiosks in Bihar State through DAVP- ministry of Information and Broadcasting--payment of dues of Rs. 7,99,425. Ex. P. 11: 21-7-l979 shri Sushil Saran, cine Publicity Cell, d-47, Rajnagar-7, ghaziabad subject:-Family Planning Kiosks in Bihar State through DAVP- ministry of Information and Broadcasting--payment of dues of Rs. 7,99,425. 00 dear Sirs, reference your letter dated 15th May, 1979, addresser to Minister of state for Information and Broadcasting regarding the above subject. DAVP has placed a contrat with your firm for a period of 3 months in 1973. Payment was made for the display. On the expiry of 3 months contract, you were clearly advised that the contract would not be renewed by us beyond the three months period and any display beyond that period would be at your risk. You may, however, if you so desire, pursue the matter with the State govt. and the Deptt. of Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare govt. of India. Yours faithfully, sd/ (K. L. Prasher) production Manager (OP) 308 ex. D. 1: co/aps/hfw/77. 23-6-1977 dear Shri Puri, kindly refer to Shri A. K. Guha s D. O. letter No. F. 14023-14/73-MEM dated 16-6-1977, to our Production Manager (OP and copy endorsed to me ). DAVP has no outstanding payment to make to M/s. Cine Publicity cell, Patna towards display of 1045 kiosks in Bibar carrying Family Planning messages, the contract for which expired on 8-6-1973 As you are aware, the contract could not be renewed due to paucity of funds allocated to us during 1973-74. We, however, just suggested to Mass Education and Media Officer p. P. Bureau, Patna to consider the necessity of renewing the contract after 8-6-73 (a copy of our letter is enclosed lor ready reference ). The agency was, however, clearly told that the contract would not be renewed by us after 8-6-73 and continuation of display, if any, would be at their own risk. With best wishes, yours sincerely, sd/- (A. P. Shome) campaign Officer Shri K. K. Puri, campaign Office deptt. of Family Welfare, room No. 512, Nirman Bhavan, new Delhi-1100011. Ex. D. 2: no. 63/4/79 OPV b. B. Kumar Bhatnagar sr. Deputy Director. New Delhi 14/25-6-73 my Dear Sinha, you arc aware that 2000 Family Planning Kiosks have been on display in Bihar. These kiosks are displayed by two contractors viz. M/s. Patliputra commercial Corporation, Grand Hotel, Annexe, Fraser Road, Patna-1 (Tel. No. 22768) for 955 kiosks and M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, Hri Mansion, Road no. Deputy Director. New Delhi 14/25-6-73 my Dear Sinha, you arc aware that 2000 Family Planning Kiosks have been on display in Bihar. These kiosks are displayed by two contractors viz. M/s. Patliputra commercial Corporation, Grand Hotel, Annexe, Fraser Road, Patna-1 (Tel. No. 22768) for 955 kiosks and M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, Hri Mansion, Road no. 39 (South) Anisabad, Bibar-2 for 1045 kiosks as per list enclosed All these 2000 kiosks were painted recently in suitable lets in Fer. 1973. These 2000 kiosks wsre painted with 6 different multi-coloured designs with the following slogans:- 1. Maa Bachu Ki Sehat Ka Raj Bachu Ki Jnm Me Antar. 2. Km Bache Har Ek Ka Hissa Jayada. 3. Km Bache Km Batwara. 4. Bache Ho Ga Jatne Km Shiksha Hoge Ati Uttam. 309 5. Doo Yaa Teen Bachee Aap Bbi Sukhi Ve Bhi Sukhi. 6. Swesth Bachee Swasth Mata Sukhi Parivar. 2. The contract with Cine Publicity Cell for 1045 kiosks expired on 8-6-73 and M/s. Patliputra Commercial Corporation for 955 kiosks on 9-6-73. Terms and conditions of these contracts arc as per copy of our order No. 63/ 4/72-OPV dated 22-11-72 are enclosed. 3. Due to paucity of finds allocated to DAVP during 1973-74, it is not possible for us to renew the above contracts. But it is worthwhile to continue the campaign in the interest of family planning publicity in Bihar. Moreover, you are aware that these 2000 kiosks painted recently will last for at least one year in normal weather conditions. We are paying Rs. 40,000. 00 towards painting of these 2000 kiosks which could not be fully justified in case the contract does not run at least for one year from the date of painting. 4. Under the above circumstances it would be desirable that the govt. of Bihar take over these 2000 kiosks from DATP for effective continuity of the campaign. In case the above suggestion is agreed to, you are to pay only rental of Rs. 15. 00 per kiosk per month less 15% commission, to the agencies viz M/s. Cinc Publicity Cell and Patliputra Commercial Corporation who are sole concessionaire at present of the electric poles/telephone-telegraph poles respectively where these kiosks are displayed. Municipal Corporation taxes if any will be paid extra if you do not obtain exemption from the concerned authority. 5. 15. 00 per kiosk per month less 15% commission, to the agencies viz M/s. Cinc Publicity Cell and Patliputra Commercial Corporation who are sole concessionaire at present of the electric poles/telephone-telegraph poles respectively where these kiosks are displayed. Municipal Corporation taxes if any will be paid extra if you do not obtain exemption from the concerned authority. 5. I request that you may think over the above suggestion and communicate the decision at an early date. I am endorsing a copy of this letter to both the partics to get in touch with yon for further necessary action. With best regards, yours sincerely, sd/- (B. B. Kumar Bhatnagar) shri A. Kumar Sinha, mass Education and Media officer, Family Planning Bureau, patna (Bihar), copy to:- 1. Messrs. Patliputa Commercial Corporation, Grand Hotel Annexe, frasar Road, Patna-1. It is regretted that as already verbally conveyed to you Directorate is unable to renew the contract with for the kiosks in Bihar after 9-6-73. Please contact and pursue the matter with the above Officer. for Director, 310 copy to: 1. M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, Hari Mansion, Road No. 39 (South) anisabad, Bihar-2. It is regretted that as already verbally conveyed to yon this Directorate is unable to renew the contract with you for the kiosks in bihar after 9-6-73. Please contact and pursue the matter with the above officer. 2. M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, 115, Richpal Puri, Sehani Gate, Ghaziabad (U. P.) 3. CO (3) sd/- for Director ex D. 3 : Telegram 1. Patliputra Commercial Corporation grand Hotel Annexe fraser Road patna-1 2. Cine Publicity Cell hari Mansion road No. 39 (South) anisabad patna-2 regret Contract for Family Planning Kiosks in Bihar not ronewed after expiry date due to paucity of funds Stop continuation of display would be at your risk advisual ex. D. 4: m/s. Cine Publicity Cell d-47, Raj Nagar-7. Ghaziabad (UP.) sub : Display of Family Planning koisks in Bihar. Dear Sirs, please refer to your list of places where electric poles are available in bihar for the above job, 2. An order for painting and display of 1045 kiosks in different districts as per list given below is placed on for a period of three months. List of Districts : 1. Shahbad 140 5. Ranchi 135 2. Gaya 155 6. Hazari Bagh 140 3. Sharsa 105 7. Champaran 120 4. Purnia 125 8. An order for painting and display of 1045 kiosks in different districts as per list given below is placed on for a period of three months. List of Districts : 1. Shahbad 140 5. Ranchi 135 2. Gaya 155 6. Hazari Bagh 140 3. Sharsa 105 7. Champaran 120 4. Purnia 125 8. Saran 125 311 total 1045 the list of Blocks/marketing Centres where the above kiosks are to be displayed in the Districts mentioned above is also mentioned. 3. (i) Rentals: (a) Rentals for 1045 @ Rs. 15. 00 per kiosk per month for three months. 47,025. 00 (b) Less 15% commission 7,053,75 (c) Nett amount payable towards rentals 39,971. 25 (ii) Painting:. . . Painting charges tor 1045 kiosks @ rs. 20. 00 per kiosk (double sided) 20,900. 00 (iii) Total of (i) and (ii) 60,871. 25 4. Size 102 cm (vertical) X 76 cm (horizontal) approx. Quantity: 1045 kiosks. Language: Hindi. 5. Design : As per attached slip. 6. Timings: (a) Submission of specimen-10 days. (b) The entire job including display at sites should be completed within 80 days from the date of approval of the specimen. A reasonable number of kiosks should be painted, got-approved by us and displayed each month beginning from second month. The display should be shown to us at respective sites for inspection. 7. Terms and conditions For display of kiosks attached will be applicable for the above contract. This may please be carefully read and followed. Yours faithfully, sd/- (K. K. NAIR) director for and on behalf of president of India. Ex. D. 5: dated: 31-1-1974 d. O. Letter No. FP-l-l9-16/72-Health. Dear Dr. Singh, regarding the publicity of Family Planning through KIOSKS and with 312 reference to the letter No. 63/4/72 DPV dated 14/25-6-73 (copy enclosed), I am directed to say that due to the paucity of allotment (of funds) for publicity, the State Government is unable to take the task in their hands. For carrying out the work, there is liklihood of expenditure of Rs. 2. 25 lacs. In the circumstances when the publicity is being carried out through the media which is a good media of publicity,, the only solution is that by the Central family Planning Department an allotment of Rs. 2. 25 lacs be made to DAVP so that the outstanding is cleared (paid ). 2. 25 lacs. In the circumstances when the publicity is being carried out through the media which is a good media of publicity,, the only solution is that by the Central family Planning Department an allotment of Rs. 2. 25 lacs be made to DAVP so that the outstanding is cleared (paid ). If the outstanding is to be paid by the State Government, then the additional allotment be made in our favour or ELSE sanction be accorded for payment out of the funds from the total savings. With regards. yours faithfully, sd/- kedar Pandey 31-01-1974 to Dr. Karan Siagh minister Health and family planning Government of India nirman Bhawan New Delhi true English Translation ex. D. 6 : no. F. 14023-14/73-MEM 26-2-1974 my dear Shri Pandey, i have your D. O. letter no. 1-19-16/72 of 31st January, 1974 about. family Planning publicity of kiosks. I have had the question examined. If the Slate Government feel that this medium of publicity is indeed useful, we on our part have no objection if additional funds for MEM activities are found by reappropriation oat of the allocution for family planning programme or Bihar State (excluding the funds allocated for compensation ), if savings are available from other heads i would however like to add that the achievement in Family Planning in the state of Bihar is far below the targets set in the current year. With good wishes, yours sincerely, sd/- karan Singh shri Kedar Pandey minister of Health and Family Planning govt of Bihar, Patna 313 ex. D. 7: lahtan Chaudbary Minister health and Family Planning Patna (Bihar) Patna Dated : 17-7-1974 d. O. Letter No. F. P. I-19-16/72/2654 (FP) dear Dr. Karan Singh, kindly refer to your DO letter No. 14023-14/74 MIM dated 26-2-74 regarding the publicity of Family Planning through KIOSKS. Necessary action has been taken on the basis of your aforesaid letter. It may be mentioned that DAVP got fixed total 2000 kiosks through Cine Publicity Cell and Patliputra Commercial Corporation. Their contract expired in 1973. The DAVP by a letter requested the State Govt. to take on themselves the responsibility of the KIOSKS because they (DAVP) have gone short of funds. Even on the basis of your letter nothing could be done in that direction as no saving was available. If the Govt. Their contract expired in 1973. The DAVP by a letter requested the State Govt. to take on themselves the responsibility of the KIOSKS because they (DAVP) have gone short of funds. Even on the basis of your letter nothing could be done in that direction as no saving was available. If the Govt. of India wants to consider the payment to those firms for that period, then it would be proper to do so on the level of the Central Govt. So fat we are concerned, we take KIOSKS as good media of publicity. In case we get sufficient funds for them in this year from the Govt. of India, then steps can be taken in this connection, you are, therefore, requested that if feasible, for Bihar extra allotmen. : of Rs. 3 lacs be made in addition to what will be ordinarily allotted to them (Bihar) under the Head of Education and Publicity, so that we may take necessary action in this regard during this year. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Lahtan Chaudhary) to: dr. Karan Singh, minister, health and Family Planning, govt. of India, New Delhi ex. D. 8: d. O. No. F. 14023-14/73 MEM dated 26. 8. 74 dear Shri Ram Swarup, kindly refer to your letter dated the 30th July, 1974 addressed to Dr karan Singhi Minister of Health and P. P. , enclosing a representation of M/s cine Publicity Cell regarding non-payment of their outstanding billot Rs 1,59,271. 60 by the Bihar Govt. In this connection the Minister has also received a letter from Shri Lahtan Chaudhary, Minister of Health andf. P bihar. Since Dr. Karan Singh is presently in Bucharest leading the Indian delegation attending the World Prop. Conference being held, I lake this 314 opportunity of writing this letter to you. We have since advised the State govt. that if adequate funds are not available under M. E. M. activities they can meet this expenditure from saving available from any other head except for compensation. with regards, yours sincerely sd/- (Kondajl Bassappa) shri Ram Swarup, member of Parliament, lok Sabha. Ex. D. 9: do. No. 14023-14/73/mem dated 26-8-74 dear Shri Lahtan Chaudhary, kindly refer to your D. O. letter dated 17-7-74 No. l.-19-16/72=2654 (FP) addressed to Dr. Karan Singh. with regards, yours sincerely sd/- (Kondajl Bassappa) shri Ram Swarup, member of Parliament, lok Sabha. Ex. D. 9: do. No. 14023-14/73/mem dated 26-8-74 dear Shri Lahtan Chaudhary, kindly refer to your D. O. letter dated 17-7-74 No. l.-19-16/72=2654 (FP) addressed to Dr. Karan Singh. Minister of Health and Family Planning, regarding the settlement of an outstanding bill of M/s Cine Publicity Cell, patna for carrying on Family Planning publicity through Kioski in Bihar during 1972-73. Since Dr. Karan Singh is recently away abroad in connection with the World Population Year Conference being held in Bucharest, i write this letter to you. In his earlier letter of even number dated the 26-2-1974 addressed to Shri Kedar Pandey, then Minister of Health and family Planning Bihar, necessary clearance was given for meeting this expenditure out of the allocation for F. P. Programme tor the State (excluding the. funds allocated for compensation ), if savings were available from other heads. Apparently the bill of the said firm was not settled during the financial year 1973-74. The State Govt. should settle this outstanding bill of M/s cine Publicity Cell by following the same procedure as indicated in our earlier letter, if adequate funds are not available from MEM allocations during the current financial year. With regards, yours sincerely, sd/- (Kondaji Bassappa) sh. Lahtan Chaudhary, minister for Health and F. P. Bihar. Ex. D. 10: d. O. No. F. 14023-14/73-MEM dt. 18 February, 1976. Dear Shri i am enclosing a copy of a letter dated 26-12-75 from Shri Ram swarup M. P. , addressed to Dr. Karan Singh, Minister of Health and Family 315 planning, regarding the case of M/s Cine Publicity Cell and a copy of the minister s reply thereto. I am also sending copies of the correspondence between the State Government and the Deptt. of Family Planning on the subject for your ready reference. Briefly the case is as follows : the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity had arranged family planning publicity in the State of Bihar through the medium of Kiosks in 1972-73. The contract with M/s Cine Publicity Cell for 1045 kiosks had expired on 8-6-73. Due to paucity of funds, DAVP could not renew the contract and referred the matter to the State Govi. suggesting that if they wanted they could utilise the medium by paying rental only to the firm. It appears that the State Govt. The contract with M/s Cine Publicity Cell for 1045 kiosks had expired on 8-6-73. Due to paucity of funds, DAVP could not renew the contract and referred the matter to the State Govi. suggesting that if they wanted they could utilise the medium by paying rental only to the firm. It appears that the State Govt. wanted to continue the display of the kiosks and tried to explore the possibility of getting additional funds for the same from the central Govt. With this end in view Shri Kedar Pandey, the then State health-Minister wrote a letter to Dr. Karan Singh on 31-1-1974. There was another letter dated 16-7-74 from Shri Lahtan Chowdhary. the then State Minister of health and Family Planning, addressed to Dr. Karan Singh, requesting lor additional funds for the purpose. We had, however, written to the State govt. that it was not possible to allocate additional funds for the purpose but the State Gove. could, if they so desired, meet the expenditure out of savings from other heads excepting allocation for compensation meanwhile, a number of letters were received in this Ministry from Shri Ram swarup. M. P. , on the subject and also direct representations from M/s Cine publicity Cell. Although no formal contract was entered into with the firm for the continuance of the kisoks display, it would appear that the firm was also not told that the State Govt. were not interested in the medium and it should discontinue the display. The State Govt. in their letter dated 27-2-75 informed Shri Ram Swarup, M. P. , that they did not enter into any contract with M/s. Cine Publicity Cell for the display of kiosks and as such the question of any outsanding bill did not arise. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to this Deptt. and on the basis of this reply a question in the parliament, put up-by Shri Ram Swarup, M. P. on the subject was answered by the minister of Health and Family Planning. I am enclosing a copy of the answer. Later the firm again represented to the Prime Minister (Copy endorsed to this Department ). A copy of its representation was forwarded to the Slate government on 28-8-1975 for necessary action. Since Shri Ram Swarup has now once again written to Dr. I am enclosing a copy of the answer. Later the firm again represented to the Prime Minister (Copy endorsed to this Department ). A copy of its representation was forwarded to the Slate government on 28-8-1975 for necessary action. Since Shri Ram Swarup has now once again written to Dr. Karan Singh, I would request you to kindly go through the case and send your comments to me at the earliest for the minister s information. Yours sincerely, sd/- (Serla Grewal) shri V. V. Nathan, health Commissioner, government of Bihar patna 316 ex. D. 12: no. F. 14023/14/73/mem (FW) dated 7-4-78 the Secretary, govt. of Bihar. Health Department (F. W.), new Secretariate, patna. Subject : Representation given by M/s. Cine Publicity Cell reg. publicity by them through Kiosk in Bihar State. Sir, i am directed to send you a copy of representation dated 30-3-78 of m/s. Cine Publicity Cell Ghaziabad addressed to the Secretary Health and family Welfare regarding settlement oftheir outstanding bills for the publicity done by them through the media of Kiosks ; and also a copy of representation dated 27-2-78 of M/s. Cine Publicity sent to Central Minister for Law, justice and Company Affairs. As told through the earlier correspondence on the subject, the Govt. of India has no concern with this matter. As such you are requested to solve the problem yourself. In this reference you are requested to peruse letter No. F. 14023/14/73-MBM (FW) dated 24-2-1978 of this Ministry. Yours faithfully, sd/- (S. W. Oak) under Secretary min. of Health and Family Welfare, new Delhi. Ex. D. 13: a patna date: 13-8-1979 d. O. No. 3156 (F. W.) dear Smt. Grewal, subject : Claim of Cine Publicity Cell Publicity on Kiosks : on the subject noted above, I have to invite your kind attention to the discussion you had with me and Dr. B. N. Prasad while we were at Delhi last and I am desired to inform you that the above claim has been examined again and the State Govt. have been pleased to reject the representation filed by the firm. In this connection, I am to refer to Sri Dhanawa, the then Health commissioner s D. O. letter No. 548 dt. 16-10-76 to you in reply to your d. O. Letter No. F. 14023-14/73 MEM dated the 18th Feb, 1976. have been pleased to reject the representation filed by the firm. In this connection, I am to refer to Sri Dhanawa, the then Health commissioner s D. O. letter No. 548 dt. 16-10-76 to you in reply to your d. O. Letter No. F. 14023-14/73 MEM dated the 18th Feb, 1976. Since then 317 the representations of the firm received through various sources have been examined a number of times, and we have also intimated the rejection of the state Govt. to the firm after obtaining orders of Minister, Health and Chief minister. As desired, I am intimating the above position to you. With regards. Yours sincerely, sd/- (U. D. Chobey) joint Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar health Deptt. (FW) Bihar. Ex. D. 14: copy of the D. O. letter No. 3761/asfp/74 dated 4th July, 1974, from shri A. Chandra Shekhar, Add ). Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family planning. New Delhi, addressed to Shri Ram Swarup, M. P. ,2, Gurdwara rakabganj Road, New Delhi. Please refer to your D. O. letter No. 1071/74 of 26-6-74 about the dues of Shri Susheel Saran of M/s. Cine Publicity Cell. I have looked into the matter and I find that there has been no further reference to us by the Govt. of Bihar since we last gave them clearance for the use of kiosks for family planning publicity. We have left the State Govt. free to use the savings from any other head, except for compensation on this or other MEM activities. sd/- (A. Chandra Shekhar) ( 20 ) THE undisputed fact between the parties is that a contract was entered into by the Directorate of Audio Visual Publicity (hereinafter called "davp") for and on behalf of Union of India, and M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, plaintiff No. 2, which is a proprietory concern of plaintiff No. 1. This was an agreement dated 22-11-1972 and has been exhibited as Ex. D. 4. By this contract the DAVP bad contracted with the plaintiffs for the display of 1045 kiosks in different districts in the State of Bihar for a period of 3 months. The districts in which, and the number of kiosks which were to be displayed were: 1. Shahbad 140 5. Ranchi 135 2. Gaya 155 6. Hazaribagh 140 3. Sharsa 105 7. Champaran 120 4. Purnia 125 8. The districts in which, and the number of kiosks which were to be displayed were: 1. Shahbad 140 5. Ranchi 135 2. Gaya 155 6. Hazaribagh 140 3. Sharsa 105 7. Champaran 120 4. Purnia 125 8. Saran 125 ( 21 ) THE said agreement dated 22-1 1-1972 states that Kiosks are to be displayed. Actually the word "kiosk" in terms of the Chambers s Twentieth 318 Century Dictionary means-a small out-of-doors rooted stall for sale of papers, sweets etc. ; a band stand; a public telephone box. The terms of the contract, in fact, reveal that what is termed as "kiosk" is a "bill board" A. Bill Board is used as a device for advertisements. I would, therefore, use the expression "kiosk" and bill board interchangeably to mean the same thing. and I would prefer to refer to the "kiosk" a bill board for the purpose of this case, ( 22 ) THE bill board according to the agreement, was to befabricated from out of 24/26 gauge steel sheets of standard quality and properly framed on all four-sides by a wooden (kailwood) frame of approximately 5 cm x2 1/2 cm. The contract thus provided for fabrication of bill boards, painting and repainting thereof, approval of specimen, inspection of the goods, mode of payment, details of display, maintenance, submission of bills etc. It is not disputed that the period of contract between the DAVP and M/s Cine Publicity Cell for the display of bill-board in the State of Bihar was for the period 8-3-1973107-6-1973. It is not disputed that the rental per month for each bill-board/kiosk was Rs. 15. 00. (From this, commission @ 15% was to be deducted.) It is also not disputed that the agreed rate for painting-for each of the bill board/kiosks was Rs. 20. 00 , and the painting was to be done under and double sided. The size of the kiosk/billboard was to be 102 cm (vertical) and 76 cm. (horizontal), and the quantity of the bill board which was displayed by the plaintiff was 1045, and the language in which the. message was to be painted on the bill board/kiosk was Hindi, and the design was to be in accordance with what was supplied by the DAVP by an attached slip. (horizontal), and the quantity of the bill board which was displayed by the plaintiff was 1045, and the language in which the. message was to be painted on the bill board/kiosk was Hindi, and the design was to be in accordance with what was supplied by the DAVP by an attached slip. There is no dispute between the parties that in terms of the agreement dated 22-11-1978 the kiosks/bill board containing the message in Hindi in accordance with the design given by the DAVP was displayed in the various districts of the Slate of Bihar mentioned in the contract during the period 8-3-1973- to 7-6-1973. There is also no dispute between the parties that the entirity of the rental about due for 1045 kiosks/bill boards for the period 8-3-73 to 7-6-73 had been paid. ( 23 ) THE disputes between the parties relate to a claim which has been made by the plaintiffs against the defendants forrental in connection with the display of the message on the kiosks/bill boards after the period of the contract in the aforesaid districts of the State of Bihar. The claim of the plaintiff in this account is mentioned in para 28 of the plaint, as being Rs. 6,39,540. 00 being the rental for the period 8-6-73 to 7-6-77. The plaintiff also claimed general damages amounting to Rs 6,39,540. 00 for wrongful detaining the payment due to the plaintiff, and also for the plaintiff s sufferings on that account which were direct and consequential to the illegal, wrongful and wilful act of the defendants. This claim is in para 29 of the plaint. The plaintiff also claimed painting charges amounting to Rs. 62,000. 00 which he alleges to have incurred in repainting 1045 kiosks/bill boards each year during the period 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. This is claimed in para 29-A,"the plaintiff also claimed compound interest at 20% per year as "unlawfully delayed payments of rental for the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977". as also further payments. Ths total claim of the plaintiff in the suit was, therefore Rs. 17,60. 739. 22. ( 24 ). I will now proceed to deal with the issues. Issue No. I is as follows:- Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit ?25. As far as the defendants are concerned, it is already noted, they have led no oral evidence in the matter. 17,60. 739. 22. ( 24 ). I will now proceed to deal with the issues. Issue No. I is as follows:- Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit ?25. As far as the defendants are concerned, it is already noted, they have led no oral evidence in the matter. Some documents have been produced, and those that have been admitted, have been exihibit marked. Before me, perhaps in view of the order dated 10-12-1981 which granted leave to the plaintiff to sue the State of Bihar in this Court, there has been no challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court to try this suit. No oral evidence has been led by the defendant No. 4, State of Bihar, and the documents filed by the State of Bihar do not go to prove this issue in favour of the State of Bihar. In this view of the matter, as there is no evidence by defendant No. 4 as to why this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, this issue has not been pressed, and is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. ( 26 ) ISSUE No. 2 which relates to whether this suit is within limitation, will be dealt with after issues No. 3, 4 and 5 have been decided. ( 27 ) ISSUES No. 3, 4 and 5 which form main issue in the instant case, have already been set out above. In substance, while considering these issues, attention has to be focused upon whether by implication or in reality, the contract subsisted in connection with display and publicity of family planning messages between the plaintiff and any of the defendants after 8-6-1973 onwards, and whether any of the defendants have enjoyed the benefit of display and publicity of family planning messages 8-6-1973, and whether the defendants are bound to make compensation to the plaintiff. ( 28 ) ALL these three issues will depend upon the meaning and effect to be given to Section 70 of the Contract Act, and whether the conditions postulated by that section are satisfied and proved in the instant case. Section 70 of the Contract Act reads as under :- "70 Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act. . . . Section 70 of the Contract Act reads as under :- "70 Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act. . . . Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore the thing so done or delivered. " ( 29 ) MR. Shiv Dayal and Mr. N. B. Sinha contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that Section 70 of the Contract Act has got three ingredients ; (i) lawfully doing of an act for anothers (ii) the act not being done gratuitously and (iii) another person enjoys benefit of doing of such act. ( 30 ) IT is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of displaying of bill-boards which had the family planning message painted thereon, by the plaintiffs and the State of Bihar was a lawful act as is apparent from the agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants dated 22-11. 1972. This agreement was for display of family planning messages on the bill-boards for the period 8-3-73 to 7-6-73. That it was not gratuitously done, is clear from the agreement which said that for each bill-board displayed, a rental of Rs. 15. 00 will be paid to the plaitiff per month. The contract being a valid contrast which was entered into by the DAVP for publicising family planning ssages in the State of Bibar was a lawful one to start with, and continued lobe a lawful act. In any case, it was not an unlawful act. It was not a prohibited act. As regards enjoyment of benefit of publicity of the family planning, it is clear that the 320 enloyment of the benefit was by the State of Bihar and the residents of the places where the bill-boards were displayed. ( 31 ) SHRI Shiv Dayal refers to para 10 of the plaint, wherein it is stated, "the plaintiffs are continuing lawfully to display the publicity through the media of 1-45 kiosks installed by them. " In the joint amended written statement which has been filed by the DAVP and the Union of India, para 10 of the plaint was stated to be wrong and was denied. " In the joint amended written statement which has been filed by the DAVP and the Union of India, para 10 of the plaint was stated to be wrong and was denied. It was asserted that defendant No. 1 never asked the plaintiff to continue to display kiosks after the period of expiry of the contract. As far as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare defendant No. 3 was concerned, in para 10 they stated that the averments in para 10 of the plaintare wrong and denied the same. They asserted, "that a mere letter from defendant No. I to defendant No. 4 cannot be constituted as a blanket agreement to extend the contract of the plaintiff until and unless the Stare Govt. agreed to extend the contract in writing. Mere absence of any objection from defendant No. 4 (the State of Bihar) to a voluntary act of the plaintiff to continue the display put up under the contract that had since expired, provides no legal or moral grounds to the plaintiff to claim payment. In any event, the replying defendant is not concerned with this act. " ( 32 ) DEFENDANT No. 4, the State of Bihar, bad filed its written, stat ement on 23-7-1981, and stated that the same shall be a written statement with reference to the amended plaint also. In reply to para 10 of the plaint, defendant No. 4 averred that the State Govt. did not enter into any contract with the plaintiff, nor directed him to continue their business. The question of the plaintiff lawfully conti nuing their publicity does not arise. ( 33 ) IN order to determine whether the plaintiff has any claim against defendants No. 1 and 2, it is sufce to refer to Ex. D. 2. In para 2 thereof, it was clearly said by defendant No, I that, "due to paucity of funds allotted to DAVP in 1973-74, it is not possible for us to renew the above contracts. " It is also stated in Ex. D. 2 as afoot note also," that as already verbally conveyed to yon, this directorate is unable to renew the contract with you for kiosks in Bihar after 9-6-1973. " In view of the these unequivocal assertions in Ex. " It is also stated in Ex. D. 2 as afoot note also," that as already verbally conveyed to yon, this directorate is unable to renew the contract with you for kiosks in Bihar after 9-6-1973. " In view of the these unequivocal assertions in Ex. D. 2, is not possible to hold that the plaintiff can sustain any claim against defendant No. 1, 2, and 3, who bad clearly and in unequivocal terms stated that they are not in a position to renew the contract. ( 34 ) IN my view the plaintiff cannot lake advantage of the fact that the officers of the DAVP had made a suggestion to the plaintiff to approach the Officers of State of Bihar for continuation of the publicity of the family planning messages in the State of Bihar. In this view of the matter, I hold that upon and after the expiry of the contract between the platntiff and defendants No I to 3 dated 22-11-1972, upon the expiry of the same, and dehors the same the plaintiff can have no claim against the said defendants Thus the above issues No. 3, 4 and 5 are accordingly decided against the" plaintiff and in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. The claim in the suit, is so far as it relates to the said three defendants has to be dismissed. ( 35 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs. Counsel AIR 1962 Supreme Court 799 (State of West Bengal v. M/s R. K. Mondal and sons) full applies to the facts and ctrcumstances of this case, inasmuch as the plaintiff lawfully continued the display of bill-boards In the State of Bihar after 8-6-1973, and that this display, according to the documents proved on record and evidence led 321 by the plaintiff proved that the display was done for the State of Bihar, defendant No. 4. It is contended that the benefit of this display of the family planning messages by the bill-boards was accepted and enjoyed by the State of Bihar; that the display of the bili-boards containing family planning messages was not done gratuitously by the plaintiff ; and, the State of Bihar enjoyed the benefit of the family planning messages by the bill-boards put up by the plaintiff. ( 36 ) THE main defence of the State of Bihar in this plaint as is evident in para 5 of the written statement, is that there is no contract between the plaintiff and the State of Bihar for the display of the kiosks bill-boards, and as such the State of Bihar is cot liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. In other words, the defence of the State of Bihar is that in view of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, there not being any formal contract between the State of Bihar and the plaintiff, the State of Bihar has no liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. ( 37 ) IN my view, the defence of the State of Bihar to the claim made by the plaintiff based upon Article 299 of the Constitution by itself, is not sufficient to avoid liability in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. K. . Mondals case (supra ). In that case also, the question was raised by the State of West Bengal that in view of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, (which corresponds to Article 299 of the Constitution of India.) the state of west Bengal was not liable. In Mondais case, the Supreme Court reiterated the view that had been taken by it earlier in AIR 1962 SC 113 (Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India) that the provision of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act was enacted with the intention that the State should not be burdened with liability based on unauthorised contracts, and the plain object of the provision, therefore, is to save the State from spurious-claims made on the strength of said unauthorised contract. In B. K. Mondal s case, despite the provision of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act. being invoked by the State of West Bengal the Supreme Court considered the case before it which was based upon unauthorised contracts, between the State of West Bengal and B, K. Mondal and Sons, with reference to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, and held that Section 70 of the Contract Act applies to the case of the unauthorised contracts, and confirmed the decree passed in favour of the respondent by the High Court. ( 38 ) ANOTHER notable thing which was done by the Supreme Court was to disagree with the meaning of the word "lawfully" found in Section 70 of the Act, as propounded by Mr. Justice Straight in ILR 11 Allahabad 724 (Chedilal v. Bhagwandas ). The test laid down by Justice Straight vis-a-vis the word "lawfully" to mean "a relation to another as either directly to create or by implication reasonably to justify an inference that by some act done for another person the party doing the act was entitled to look for compensatton for it to the person for whom it was done," was over-ruled. The Supreme Court said, "it was not satisfied that-the test laid down by Straight, J can be said to be justified by the terms of Section 70. " The Supreme Court held that the word "lawfully" used in Section 70 indicates, "that after something is delivered, or something is done by one person for another, and that thing is accepted and enjoyed by latter, a lawful relation is born between the two which under the provisions of Section 70 gives rise to a claim for compensation. ( 39 ) IT was further observed by the Supreme Court, "there is no doubt 322 that the thing delivered or done must not be delivered or done fraudulently or dishonestly nor must it be delivered or done gratuitously. Section 70 is not intended to entertain claims for compensation made by persons who officiously interfere with the affairs of another or who impose on others services not desired by them. Section 70 deals with cases where a person does a thing for another not intending to act gratuitously and the other enjoys it. It is thus clear that when a thing is delivered or done by one person it must be open to the other person to reject it. Therefore, the acceptance and enjoyment of the thing delivered or done which is the basis for the claim for compensation under Section 70 must be voluntary. It would thus be noticed that this requirement affords sufficient and effective safeguard against suprious claims based on unauthorised acts. If the act done by the respondent was unauthorised and spurious the appellant could have easily refused to accept the said act and then the respondent would not have been able to make a claim for compensation". It would thus be noticed that this requirement affords sufficient and effective safeguard against suprious claims based on unauthorised acts. If the act done by the respondent was unauthorised and spurious the appellant could have easily refused to accept the said act and then the respondent would not have been able to make a claim for compensation". ( 40 ) AS regards claim under Section 70 of the Contract Act, the supreme Court said, "in the very nature of things claims for compensation are based on the footing that there has been no contract and that the conduct of the parties in relation to what is delivered or done creates relationship that arising out of contract. " The Supreme Court further observed that, "the conduct of the parties has to be judged on the basis that there was no subsisting contract between them at material times. Dealing with the case on this basis we have to enquire whether the requisite conditions prescribed by Section 70 have been satisfied. If they are satisfied then a claim for comrpensation can and must be entertained. In this connection it is necessary to emphasise that what Section 70 provides is that compensation has to be paid in respect of the goods delivered or the work done. The alternative to the compensation thus provides is the restoration of the thing so delivered or done . ( 41 ) THE Supreme Court observed that "the fields covered by Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act (which corresponds to Article 229 of the Constitution, and Section "70, are separate and distinct ; Section 175 (3) deals with contracts and provides how they should be made. Section 70 deals with cases where there is no valid contract and provides for compensation to be paid in a case where the three requisite conditions prescribed by it are satisfied We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no confict between the two provisions". ( 42 ) THE Supreme Court also observed, "sometimes. . . . . . in the pursuit of the welfare policy of the State Government officers may have to enter into contract orally or through correspondence without strictly complying with the provisions of Section 175 (3) of the Act. ( 42 ) THE Supreme Court also observed, "sometimes. . . . . . in the pursuit of the welfare policy of the State Government officers may have to enter into contract orally or through correspondence without strictly complying with the provisions of Section 175 (3) of the Act. If in all these cases, what is done in pursuance of the contracts is for the benefit of the Govrnment and for their use and enjoyment and is otherwise legitimate and proper Section 70 would step in and support a claim for compensation made by the contracting panics notwithstanding the fact that the. contracts had not been made as required by Section 175 (3) If it was held that Section 70 was inapplicable in regard to such dealings by government officers it would led to extremely unreasonable consequences and may even hamper, if not wholly, bring to a standstill the efficient working of the government from day to day. " ( 43 ) THE Supreme Court held, ". . . like ordinary citizens even the State Government is subject to the provisions of Section 70, and if it has accepted the things delivered to it or enjoyed the work done for it, such acceptance 323 and enjoyment would afford a valid basis for claims of compensation ahainst it. Claims based on a contract validly made under Section 175 (3) must,. therefore, be distinguished from claims for compensation made under Section 70, and if that distinction is borne in mind there would be no difficulty in. rejecting the argument that Section 70 treats as valid the contravention of, Section 175 (3) of the Act". ( 44 ) IT is in this background of the requirements of Section 70 of the Contract Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court, this case has to be considered, and it has to be seen whether the said requirements arc fulfiled in the facts and circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court said in B. K. Mondal's case. that, "it is plain that three eonditions must be satisfied before this section can be invoiced. The first condition is that a person should lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him. The second condition is. The Supreme Court said in B. K. Mondal's case. that, "it is plain that three eonditions must be satisfied before this section can be invoiced. The first condition is that a person should lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him. The second condition is. that in doing the said thing or delivering the said thing he must not intend to act gratuitously; and the third is that the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thefeof. When these conditions are satisfied Section 70 imposes upon the latter person the liability to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. In appreciating the scope and effect of the provisions of this section it would be useful to illustrate how this section would operate. If a person delivers something to another it would be open to the latter person to refuse to accept the thing or to return it; in that case Section 70 would not come into operation. Similarly, if a person does something for another it would be open to the latter person not to accept what has been done by the former ; in that case again Section 70 would not apply. In other words, the person. said to be made liable under Section 70 always has the option not to accept the thing or to return it, It is only where he voluntary accepts the thing or enjoys the work done that the liability under Section 70 arises. Taking the facts in the case before us, after the respondent constructed the warehouse for instance it was open to the appellant to refuse to accept the said warehouse and to have the benefit of it. It could have called upon the respondent to demolish the said' warehouse and take away the materials used by it in constructing it; but if the appellant accepted the said warehouse and used it and enjoyed its benefit then different considerations come into play and Section 70 can be invoked. Section 70 occurs in Chapter-V which deals with certain relations resembling those created by contract. In other words, this chapter does not deal with the rights or liabilities accruing from the contract. It deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations which resemble those created by contract. Section 70 occurs in Chapter-V which deals with certain relations resembling those created by contract. In other words, this chapter does not deal with the rights or liabilities accruing from the contract. It deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations which resemble those created by contract. That being so, reverting to the facts of the present case once again, after the respondent constructed the warehouse it would not be open to the respondent to compel the appellant to accept it because what the respondent has done is not in pursuance of the terms of any valid contract and the respondent in making the work construction took the risk to the rejection of the by the appellant. Therefore, in cases falling under Section 70 the person doing something for another delivering something to another cannot sue for the specific performance of the contract nor ask for damages for the breach of the contract for the simple reason on that there is no contract between him and the other person for whom he does something or to whom the delivers something. All that Section 70 provides if that if the goods delivered are accepted or the work done is voluntarily enjoyed then the liability to pay compensation for the enjoyment of the said goods or the acceptance of the said Work arises. Thus, where a claim for compensation is made by one person against another under Section 70 it is pot on the basis of any subsisting contract between the parties, it is on the basis of the fact that something was done by the party for another and the said work so done has been voluntarily accepted by the other party. That broadly stated is the effect of the conditions prescribed by Section 70. " ( 45 ) ONE thing is plain from reading the testimony of the two witnesses of the plaintiff, and perusal of the documents filed by the parties Whereas the DAVP in unequivocal terms vide their letter Ex. D. 2 communicated with the plaintiff that the consract was not being renewed, no such communication was addressed by the State of Bihar to the plaintiff. The State of Bihar have not told the plaintiff at any stage that the bill-boards should be removed. D. 2 communicated with the plaintiff that the consract was not being renewed, no such communication was addressed by the State of Bihar to the plaintiff. The State of Bihar have not told the plaintiff at any stage that the bill-boards should be removed. The State of Bihar have also not communicated to the plaintiff that the work of the display of the bill-boards would be treated as gratuitous act on the part of the plaintiff to the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar did not communicate with the plaintiff that the work of display of the family planning messages in the State of Bihar being done by the plaintiff was an unlawful act The State of Bihar also did not communicate to the plaintiff that it did not wish to enjoy the benefit of the work of display of family planning messages through bill-boards in the State of Bihar at the hands of the plaintiff. ( 46 ) IT is now to be seen whether the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the B. K. Mondal's case are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the inslant caie, as between the plaintiff and the State of Bihar For that purpose one has to see the oral testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses and the documents which have been exhibit marked between the parties. ( 47 ) IN the instant case as already observed earlier, despite the fact that the oral testimony was given by the plaintiff, the same was not countered by the oral testimony of either representatives of the Union of India or the representatives of the State ot Bihar. The testimony ot the plaintiffs witnesses in so far as the same is consistent with the exhibited documents, therefore, unrebutted and has to be accepted. ( 48 ) IT is clear that the initial display of bill boards on electric poles pursuant to the contract between the DAVP and the plaintiff was not a gratuitous act The contract dated 22-11-72 postulated payment of rental for the display, @ Rs. 15/ per month per kiosk minus commission of 15%. ( 48 ) IT is clear that the initial display of bill boards on electric poles pursuant to the contract between the DAVP and the plaintiff was not a gratuitous act The contract dated 22-11-72 postulated payment of rental for the display, @ Rs. 15/ per month per kiosk minus commission of 15%. Once the bill-boards were placed on the electric poles at various locations in the State of Bihar, nothing more was to be done, except to ensure that the message the slogan-was visible and legible Visibility and legibil ity of the slogan was ensured by repainting of the slogans As in the instant case we are dealing with the publicity ot family planning messages. In the instant case, in view of the terms of the contract between the DAVP and the plaintiff, it has to be accepted that the act of display of painted messages on the bill-boards fitted on to electric poles is the "work done" in the tacts and circumstances of the case, for which the plaintiff was entitled to receive payment in the shape of aforesaid rental This work was continued to be done by the plaintiff so long as the bill-boards were not removed by the plaintiff The only way the plaintiff would cease to do the work ot display of family planning' messages on the bill boards would be when orders requiring him to stop the display work passed. ( 49 ) AS obsereed above, the DAVP bad informed the plaintiff that it was no more interested the work of display of family planning messages in the Slate of Bihar after the period of the contract by its letter Ex. D. 2. In this view of the matter, once Ex. D. 2 was communicated to the plaintiff,the plaintiff could not expect any payment of rental from the DAVP. ( 50 ) BY the very same Ex. D. 2, defendants No. 1 to 3 bad intimated to the plaintiff that owning to financial constrant, it could not pay for work of display, but the plaintiff was free to approach the authorities of the State of Bihar for continuing with the display. Copies of the said communication Ex. D. 2, were also addressed to the authorities in the State of Bihar, which had the benefit of display in various locations by the plaintiff. Copies of the said communication Ex. D. 2, were also addressed to the authorities in the State of Bihar, which had the benefit of display in various locations by the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the DAVP had made its intention clear that it was not interested any further in the display of the bill-boards in the State of Bihar, so could have the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar never unequivocally informed the plaintiff that it was not interested in the plaintiff carrying on the work: of display of bill-boards, bearing the family planning messages in the State of Bihar. It is not disputed by any of the parties that carrying on the work of display of family planning messages was lawful activity/lawful work done by the plaintiff. What was lawful to start with by virtue of the operation of the contract dated 22-11-1972 would, in my view. not cease to be lawful in view of the conduct of the authorities of the State of Bihar, as evidenced by the documents on record. It is also clear that during the period of the terms of the contract, the work was not done gratuitously by the plaintiff, as he received-payment of rental (minus the agreed commission ). It is also clear that during the period of the contract, the State of Bihar enjoyed the benefit of the work done in connection with the display of the family planning messages on bill-boards mounted on electric poles. . ( 51 ) THE conduct of the State of Bibar, as evidenced by Ex. D. 5 which was a letter dated 31-1-1974 written by Shri Kedar Pandey, then Minister of Health in the State of Bihar to Dr. Karan Singh, then Minister of Health and Family Planning of the Government of India. By that letter, it is stated that in connection with the display of family planning slogans on the Bill Boards. An expenditure of Rs. 2. 25 lacs was likely. It was further stated that, "the publicity is being carried out through the media which is a good media of publicity". The publicity referred to in this letter is the publicity which was being done by the bill-boards. The said letter goes on to add, that the only solution is that the Central Family Planning department make allotment of Rs. 2 25 lacs to the DAVP. so that ontstandings are cleared. The publicity referred to in this letter is the publicity which was being done by the bill-boards. The said letter goes on to add, that the only solution is that the Central Family Planning department make allotment of Rs. 2 25 lacs to the DAVP. so that ontstandings are cleared. It was also asserted that if outstandings were to be paid by the State Government, then additional allotment be made in favour of the State Government or else "sanction be accorded for payment out of the funds from the total savings. " ( 52 ) FROM the said letter, it is clear that e State of Bihar 'desired to continue the publicity by means of the bill-boards It had some difficulty in making payments for the work done in connection with the bill-boards, that is to say the payment of rentals This letter acknowledges that a sum of Rs. 2. 25 lacs had already become payable for the display of the bill-boards, and the solutions that were offered, were three The first was that the Central Family Planning department makes an allotment of Rs. 2. 25 lacs to the DAVP so that the outsiandings could be cleared. The second solution was that the Stale Government be given additional allotment if the State of Bihar was required to make the payment, and the third was that in case the additional money was not being made available, then sanction be accorded by the Central Government to the State Government to make payments from out of the funds of total savings. ( 53 ) IN response thereto, Dr. Karan Singh, the then Minister of Health, wrote back to Shri Kedar Pandey vide Ex. D. 6 that be has had the question raised by Mr. Kedar Pandey, examined and stated that the Central Government on its "part" have no objection if additional funds for Mass Education Media activities are found by reappropriation out of the allocation for family planning programme for the State of Bihar (excluding the funds allocated for 'compensation') if savings arc available from other headas This clearly meant that the Central Government was giving its approval to make the payment to the plaintiff from out of the savings available under other heads. The plaintiff has asserted in para 16 of the amended plaint that "in that year there were savings of Rs. The plaintiff has asserted in para 16 of the amended plaint that "in that year there were savings of Rs. 9 lacs but the defendant did not pay the pending bills of the plaintiff. " In reply to para 16 of the amended plaint, defendant No. 4 in para 11 of its written statement asserts, "that in reply to para 16, defendant No. 4 avers that it has no commitment to pay anything to the plaintiff. " Thus it is clear that the assertion in para 16 of the plaint that there were savings of Rs. 9 lacs with the State Government out of which the bills of the plaintiff were not paid, has not been specifically denied. Inview of the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 1538 (Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading) unless there is a specific denial, the pleas have to be taken to be admitted. Thus it is dear that there were savings of Rs. 9 lacs in the other heads from which the State of Bihar could have paid the plaintiff. There being no specific denial of the State of Bihar, the averments in para 16 of the plaint stand established. ( 54 ) THE Supreme Court has also made observations in AIR 1967 SC 109 at page 111, (Jahuri Sah and others v. Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala and others), which lead to the same results. Thus Ex. D. 5 and Ex. D. 6 lead to the conclusion that the State of Bihar wanted continuation of publicity of family planning messages by the medium of bill-boards mounted on electric poles, and it is for this reason that the display of Bill Boards was continuing. The work done by the plaintiff, after the period of the contract, therefore, has to be taken-as the work lawfully done by the plaintiff for the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar took the kiosks as good media of publicity. This is clear from Ex. D. 5 and Ex. D. 7. ( 55 ) THE Central Government reiterated its stands taken in Ex, D. 6 and Ex D. 9 that if savings were available from other heads, the bills of the plaintiff bepaid. It is recorded in Ex. The State of Bihar took the kiosks as good media of publicity. This is clear from Ex. D. 5 and Ex. D. 7. ( 55 ) THE Central Government reiterated its stands taken in Ex, D. 6 and Ex D. 9 that if savings were available from other heads, the bills of the plaintiff bepaid. It is recorded in Ex. D. 9 that apparently bill of the plaintiff was not settled during the financial year 1973-74, and it was stated that the State Government should settle this outstanding bill of M/s Cine publicity Cell, following the procedure as indicated in an earlier letter. ( 56 ) IT is recorded in Ex. D. 10 that the plaintiff was not told by the State Government that they were" not interested in the medium, and it should discontinue the publicity". ( 57 ) EX. Public Witness 1/1 is a representation dated 21-8-1975made by the plaintiff to Shri Bindeshwari Dubey, Minister of Health and Family Planning of the Government of Bibar. This was proved by Ram Sarup, Public Witness 2. This document bears anendorsement by the Minister of Family Planning, Shri Bindeshwari Dubey, that "the payment be made soon". This representation, according to the testimony of Ram Sarup. Public Witness 2, which is unrebutted, was given by Ram Sarup, Public Witness 2 to Shri Bindeshwari Dubey, who had. by the time of the testimony of the witness recorded in Court, become the Chief Minister of Bibar. The above said documents, and the depositions, are sufficient, in my view, to hold that the work of display was lawfully done by the plaintiff in the State of Bihar. Once it is held that the work was lawfully done in the State of Bihar, the next condition laid down by the Supreme Court in B. K. Mondal's case (supra ). That the benefit of the work has been enjoyed, must automatically follow inasmuch as keeping in view the nature of the work done in this case, that is to say the display of bill-boards containing the family planning messages, and display of those bill-boards in various locations in the State of Bihar, it has to follow that whatever benefit which accrued from the display of those bill-boards, was enjoyed by the State of Bihar. ( 58 ) IT is also clear from the conduct of the plaintiff, and the understanding of the matter by the officials of the State of Bihar, as evidenced by Ex. D. 4,ex. D. 5 and Ex. Public Witness 1/1 that the plaintiff did not undertake to do the work and display the aforesaid family planning messages on bill' boards mounted on electric poles gratuitously. The plaintiff has all along been wanting to be paid for the work done. It cannot, therefore, be said that the work which was done by the plaintiff was gratuitous. The work done by the plaintiff cannot be said to be done, or given for nothing, cannot be said to be a voluntary act. ( 59 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff refers to the Fourth Five- Year Plan, which was prepared by the Planning Commission bad come into existence by virture of an Executive Resolution of the Government of India on 15-3-1950. Family planning is dealt with in the Fourth Five-Year Plan at page 391. It is stated at 18. 16 that "family Planning finds its place in the Plan as a programme of the highest priority. Its crucial importance is reflected in the widespread public interest that has been aroused no less than in the magnitude of the effort, organisation and finance which Government is devoting to the programme. " It is stated in para 18. 25 at page 393 that "family Planning will remain a Centrally sponsored programme for the next ten years and the entire expenditure will be met by the Central Government. " The Fourth Five-Year Plan was for the period 1969 to 1974, and with by the Plan, would carry on till 1979. ( 60 ) IN view of lack of material being placed before me, it is not possible for me, to hold that the Fourth Five-Year Plan is a document which gives rise to promissory estoppels. Sufficient proof has not been led in this case, and for that reason, I am not prepared to bold that the averments in the Five Year plan leads to promissory estoppel in favour of citizens, like the plaintiff. It may be that in another case, such evidence and proof is led, which gives rise to such an inference but what is proved in this case falls short of what is required to establish promissory estoppels. . It may be that in another case, such evidence and proof is led, which gives rise to such an inference but what is proved in this case falls short of what is required to establish promissory estoppels. . ( 61 ) HOWEVER, one thing is clear. Family Planning programme was sponsored by the Central Government, expenses in connection therewith had to be met by the Central Government In my view, the documents filed in the instant case, particularly Ex D. 5 makes it very clear that the Central Government had sanctioned the incurring of expenses in connection with the display of family planning messages on bill-boards mounted on electric poles by directing the State Government to pay the money out of savings from other heads, (as is being asserted in para 16 of the amended plaint, reproduced hereabove ). It was for the Stale Government to have made the payment, which chose not to do so Instead of paying the amount, cleared by the Central Government, it has now chosen to adopt an attitude that there being no contract between the plaintiff and the State Government, in terms of Article 299 of tie Constitution, it has no liability, to pay. ( 62 ) THIS stand of the State Government is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B. K. Mondal's case wherein, as stated above the Supreme Court stated that Section 70 of the Contract Act operates notwithstanding the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. D. Goburdhan, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, defendant No. 4, that Section 70 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 63 ) MR. Goburdhan has also referred to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and the rules made thereunder by the State of Bihar. Mr. Goburdhan had contended that the State Electricity Board was the owner of the electric poles, that it was independent of the State of Bihar. and that the State of Bihar had no power to remove the bill boards. Mr. Goburdhan had contended that the State Electricity Board was the owner of the electric poles, that it was independent of the State of Bihar. and that the State of Bihar had no power to remove the bill boards. In my view the power of removal of the bill-boards from the electric poles was not of any consequence, inasmuch as the State of Bihar only needed to have told the plaintiff that it was not interested in having family planning messages displayed on the bill-boards which were mounted on the electric poles. Once such a communication had been addressed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not have any claim against the State of Bihar, as the State of Bihar would have made known its intention that it was interested in the publicity of the family planning messages As no such communication was addressed by the State of Bihar, none has been produced in Court in this case, it has to be assumed, as indeed it stands to be established by Ex. D. 4 to Ex. 6 that the State of Bihar was very much interested in continuation of the family planning publicity by means of bill-boards mounted on electric poles. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the State of Bihar that it had no power to get the bill-boards removed, and, therefore, it is not liable to pay. The liability of the State of Bihar to pay, arises as all the conditions postulated by Section 70 of the Contract Act, and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in B. K. Mondal's case, stand established by the plaintiff. ( 64 ) ANOTHER matter which was briefly adverted to during the course of arguments, was matter of Article 257 of the Constitution Article 257 of the Constitution read as under :- "257 (1 ). The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the elective power of the Union, and the exective power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the elective power of the Union, and the exective power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. (2) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in the direction to be national or military importance: Provided that nothing in this clause shall betaken restricting the power of Parliament to declare highways or waterways to be national highway or national waterways or the power of the Union with respect to the higaways or waterways so declared or the power of the Union to construct and maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to naval, military and air force works. 329 (3) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a Stale as to the measures to be taken for the protection of the railways within the State. (4) Where in carrying out any direction given to a State under clause (2) as to the construction or maintenance of any means of communication or under clause (3) as to the measures to be taken for the protection of any railway, costs have been incurred in excess of those which would have been incurred in the discharge of the normal duties of the State if such direction had not been given, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of the extra costs so incurred by the Stale. " ( 65 ) IT was conceded by Mr. " ( 65 ) IT was conceded by Mr. Goburdhan that the publicity by Bill Boards during the period of the contract between the DAVP and the plaintiff was lawful vis-a-vis the State of Bihar due to Article 257 of the Constitution of India, as such publicity was lawful and the said agreement dated 22-11-72 would be considered to be a direction by the Union to the State of Bihar to have a display of the family planning messages by bill-boards in various locations of the State of Bihar. ( 66 ) MR. Goburdhan, however, contended that inasmuch as there was no executive order after the period of the contract, the activity of display would be unlawful. In the facts and circumstances of this case, especially from what is proved by Ex D. 4 to Ex. D6, even though there is no direction from the Union Government, there was nothing to stop the State of Bihar from independently accepting the work of display of the family planning messages by means of bill-boards mounted on electric poles and these letters go to show that this is what the State of Bihar on its own. accepted. It did not need any direction from the Central Government after the period of the contract was over, and the activity which was being accepted and recommended by the State to the Union Government especially in Ex. D4, cannot be termed as unlawful for the purposes of this case It is clear from Ex. Public Witness 1/1 which contains an endorsement of the Minister of Health, that payment should be made to the plaintiff, and from Ex. D. 4 to D. 6 that the Slate of Bihar was acknowledging the liability to pay for the work which was done by the plaintiff. In any event, the contents of these documents amount to an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the State of Bihar to pay under explanation (a) to Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The said Section 18 of the Limitation Act and its proviso reads AS under:- 18. In any event, the contents of these documents amount to an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the State of Bihar to pay under explanation (a) to Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The said Section 18 of the Limitation Act and its proviso reads AS under:- 18. (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period fora suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right, has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person though whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed-but 330 subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, ors, evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation-For the purposes of this section.- (a) and acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to spece the exact nature of the property or rights or evers that the time for payment, delivery performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right', (b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agensduly authorised in this behalf; and (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall so" "be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right. ', ( 67 ) THE above said letters Ex. Public Witness 1/1. Ex. D. 2, Ex. D. 4, Ex. "d. 3. and Ex D. 6. clearly establish that the State of Bihar was attempting to raise additional allocations, from which the bills were to be paid, and not its liability to pay. ( 68 ) THEREFORE, Vis-a-vis the State of Bihar, issues No. 3, 4 and 5. Public Witness 1/1. Ex. D. 2, Ex. D. 4, Ex. "d. 3. and Ex D. 6. clearly establish that the State of Bihar was attempting to raise additional allocations, from which the bills were to be paid, and not its liability to pay. ( 68 ) THEREFORE, Vis-a-vis the State of Bihar, issues No. 3, 4 and 5. which relate to acceptance of the display of family planning messages by bill-boards mounted on electric poles in the State of Bihar, although there was no existing written contract therefor, by the provision of Section 70 of the Contract Act was complied with stand proved in the instant case. . ( 69 ) IN view of the decision on issues No. 3,4 and 5, issue,no. 2 regarding limitation has to be dealt with. i It is not in dispute between the parties that the original contract which was entered into between the DAVP and the plaintiff was dated 22-11-1972. and in terms of the said contract the period for display of family planning messages on bill-boards was 8-3-1973 to 7-6-1973. ( 70 ) IT is also not in dispute between the parties in view of the averments in the plaint, which arc not specifically denied in the written statement, the period of display after the contract period was from 8-6-1973 to 7-6-1977. This averment relating to period of display after the term of the contract is. made in the amended plaint, in para 28. Regarding the 'period of display,. defendant No. 4 has stated, "in reply to para 28, defendant avers that there was no contract between the parties, and, therefore, defendant No. 4 has no liability to pay anything to the plaintiff. " ( 71 ) IN view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Badatand Co. " case, and AIR 1967 Supreme Court 109, this averment does not amount to denial, and it has to be taken as' proved that the bill-boards were continued to be displayed in the State of Bihar from 8-6-1973 to 7-6-1977. ( 72 ) AS the display continued during the aforesaid period of 8-6-1973 to 7-6-1977, it has to be seen whether the claim is within time. The suit was filed on 14-8-1978, and the display was. stopped-on. 8-6-1977. ( 72 ) AS the display continued during the aforesaid period of 8-6-1973 to 7-6-1977, it has to be seen whether the claim is within time. The suit was filed on 14-8-1978, and the display was. stopped-on. 8-6-1977. The plaintiff contends that every letter which has been written by the State of Bihar to the- Central Government and to the plaintiff, amounts to an acknowledgement in view of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and its explanation, as the acknowledgements contain documents addressed to the persons other than the person: entitled to the benefit. ( 73 ) ACCORDING to Article 113 of the Limitation Act the period of Limitation fora suit for which no period of limitation is provided, is three years. when the right to sue accrues. ( 74 ) THE question in this case, therefore, is when the right to sueaccrues. As. to accrual of the right to sne, the counsel for the plaintiff re fers. to AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1433 (Gannon Dunkerley and' Co. Ltd: v. The Union of India), wherein the Court said that, "in our judgment, there is no fight to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit, and its infringement, or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. " ( 75 ) THE clear and unequivocat right of the plaintiff to be paid for the display for the-kiosks is infringed in the instant case when the bills submitted by the plaintiff were returned by the State of Bihar vide Ex D. 11 on 16-5- 76. It is from 16-5-76 that the period of three years will being to run. It is also dear from the documents which have been filed in this case, mainly Ex: Public Witness 1/1, Ex. D. 5 and Ex D. 7 that there is acknowledgement within the meaning of explanation to Section 18 of the Limitation Act in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also referred to some other cases which are 1960 Supreme Court 333 (Mst. Rukhmabal v. Lala Laxminarayan and others), 1961 Supreme Court 808 at page 810, for showing that the period of limitation beings to run from the date when the right asserted is threatened, or infringed. In this view of the matter, what is stated above, I hold that the suit is within time. Issue no. Rukhmabal v. Lala Laxminarayan and others), 1961 Supreme Court 808 at page 810, for showing that the period of limitation beings to run from the date when the right asserted is threatened, or infringed. In this view of the matter, what is stated above, I hold that the suit is within time. Issue no. 2 is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff. ( 76 ) ISSUE No. 6 relates to amount of compensation the plaintiff is entitled. In this matter, the period of display is not in dispute. The period of display is from 8-6-1973 to 7-6-1977. The agreed rate at. which each bill-board was to paid for, was Rs. 15. 00. per month. 1045 kiosks/bill-boards were admittedly displayed in terms of the original contract, and it is not the case of the State of Bihar that any of those bill-boards were removed. Counsel for the plaintiff has cited AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1201 (Pilloo Dhuaji Shaw Sidhwa v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona), in which the principle that has been laia by the Supreme Court, is, that in cases under Section 70 of the Contract Act, compensation would normally be the market price of the goods. In the case before me, goods have not been supplied, bat work has been done. The work done was display of family planning messages on bill-boards mounted on electric poles. In my view, the market price cannot be in the facts and circumstances of the case, something other than what was the rate of rent agreed to in the contract between the DAVP and the plaintiff The rate at which the plaintiff is therefore, entitled to be paid,. is the rate that was agreed to in the said contract dated 22-11-1972. ( 77 ) THE plaintiff has made a claim in the plaint of Rs. 6,39,540. 00 being the rental from 8-6-1973 to 7-6-1977. In my view the plaintiff entitled" to a decree for the said amount on account of rental for 1045 kiosks/bill boards. The plaintiff in para 29 of the plaint claims general damages amounting to Rs. 6,39,540. 00 for wrongfully detaining the payment due to the plaintiff, and also for the phaintiff sufferings on that account which were direct and 'consequential to the illegal, wrongful and wilful act of the defendant. The damages are required to be proved. The plaintiff in para 29 of the plaint claims general damages amounting to Rs. 6,39,540. 00 for wrongfully detaining the payment due to the plaintiff, and also for the phaintiff sufferings on that account which were direct and 'consequential to the illegal, wrongful and wilful act of the defendant. The damages are required to be proved. In my view, the plaintiff has not proved the general damages under the heads in which they are claimed. In my view, he is not entitled to any amount on account of general damages. ( 78 ) IN para 29, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 62,700. 00 incurred by the plaintiff on account of repainting of 1045 kiosks each year during the period 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The plaintiff has said that hehad sub-mitted a bill for painting charges of Rs. 62,700. 00 , but this bill was returned. The original contract postulated painting of the bill-boards. There is no suggestion by counsel for defendant No. 4 in the cross-examination of the plaintiff that the bill-boards, in fact, were not painted. The only question which "was put by the counsel for defendant No. 4 in cross-examination was relating 'to a contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 4, in response to which it was stated by the plaintiff that, "it is correct that there was no contract of the plaintiff with defendant No. 4. " In this view of the evidence, I am inclined to accept the plaintiff unrebutted testimony that he bad spent a sum of Rs. 62,700. 00 for repainting, these bill-boards/kiosks every year during the period 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, and hold that he is entitiled to receive the said amount of Rs. 62,700. 00 also. ( 79 ) IN my view, the claim made by the plaintiff for the salary of the staff, cannot beallowed for the reason that it was not part of the contract in connection with the display of the bill-boards. ( 80 ) IN the facts and circamstances of the case, therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to a decree for Rs. 7,02,240. 00. ( 80 ) IN the facts and circamstances of the case, therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to a decree for Rs. 7,02,240. 00. No other claim, of the plaintiff that is to say the cost of jeep and hydraulic lift is entertainable, as no such claim was made in the plaint As regards the claim of the plaintiff for loss of kiosks and the cost thereof, in my view, the plaintiff is not entitied to the same, as admittedly the bill-boards/kiosks were the property of the plaintiff as soon as the plaintiff realised that he is not being paid after the period of display was over, as a prudent person the plamtiff ought to have removed the said bill-boards/kiosks and take them into bis custody. If any loss has been sustained by the plaintiff then he has to bear the same. . ( 81 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and in view of the facts proved, and keeping in view the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 7,02,240. 00 in his favour against the State of Bihar, and the plaintiff's claim is decreed to that extent. ( 82 ) AS the transaction between the parties was in the nature of commercial transaction, the plaintiff is also entitled to interest. The plaintiff has claimed compound interest @ 20% per annum. There is no evidence led by the plaintiff that he is entitled to compound interest @ 20% per annum according to any custom or trade practice, and as such he is not entitled to interest at that rate. However there is unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff that the Bank rate of lending during 1974 was 14% As what was done by the plaintiff was commercial activity I hold that the plaintiff is entitled, also @ 14% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.