P. C. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS in Money Suit No. 39/ 2 of 1972/ 75 are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal passing a decree against the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 4150/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit to the date of realisation of the said amount and further declaring that the Certificate Case No. 71 of 1971-72 now pending with defendant No. 5 (Certificate Officer, Kamakshyanagar) is void. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff is a forest contractor and pursuant to an advertisement for sale of timber of Dhenkanal Forest Division, Angul, he was a bidder in respect of divisional lot No. 21 of Rajagada coupe No. 8 of East Kamakshyanagar Range in the auction held on 13-9-1965. The auction was conducted by defendant No. 4 (Divisional Forest Officer, Dhenkanal) which was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff, who became the highest bidder having offered Rs. 41,500/ -. Ten per cent of the bid amount amounting to Rs. 4150/- was accepted from the brother of the plaintiff, who was also his authorised agent and according to the plaintiff, his brother was also made to sign a blank forest contract agreement form on that day. The plaintiff alleges that though he was intimated by a letter dated 19-10-1965 (Ext. D) that his bid has been accepted by the concerned authorities and he was to pay the bid amount in four instalments on the dates specified therein. The plaintiff did not act there upon saying that the agreement has not been made over to him after being duly signed by the competent authority. It is only on 2-8-1966 the agreement was made over to him being duly signed. But there was no rephasing regarding the date of payment of instalment amount. Consequently the plaintiff could not pay the instalment though he made grievance by several letters written to the authorities. Thereafter the contract was terminated by the authorities which the plaintiff alleges to be illegal. The coupe was re-sold and the amount which was deficit by the resale of the coupe is now claimed to be recovered in Certificate case No. 71 of 1971-72 which is pending before the Certificate Officer (defendant No. 5 ). Thereafter the contract was terminated by the authorities which the plaintiff alleges to be illegal. The coupe was re-sold and the amount which was deficit by the resale of the coupe is now claimed to be recovered in Certificate case No. 71 of 1971-72 which is pending before the Certificate Officer (defendant No. 5 ). The plaintiff was also intimated that his security deposit has been forfeited along with the termination of the contract. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for realisation of the aforesaid security deposit of Rs. 4150/- along with the interest, also for realisation of sum of Rs. 1000/- as damages for breach of contract and for a declaration that the Certificate Case No. 71 of 1971-72 pending before the Certificate Officer, Kamakshyanagar is void ab initio. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 2, 3, 4 and 5 were set ex parte, whereas written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 who contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 denied all the plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiff was duly intimated that he has been accepted by the competent authority being the highest bidder, to operate the forest coupe in question and he was required to pay the consideration in four equal instalments on the dates specified in the letter exhibited in the suit as Ext. 'd'. It is also the case of the contesting defendant that coupe was made over to him on 4-11-1965 on which day the plaintiffs brother-cum-authorised agent signed the coupe declaration certificate acknowledging the delivery of possession. The said document has been marked as Ext. 'j' in the suit. The plaintiff thereafter having defaulter in payment of the instalments dues, the contract was terminated in the manner as provided under law and the security money deposited by him was forfeited as a consequence of the termination of contract. It is for this reason it was contended by the defendant No. 1 that a resale of the coupe was correctly made and the plaintiff was also legally bound to compensate the Government for the loss sustained on account of his default. The deficit consideration money is sought to be realised in the certificate proceeding which, according to the defendant No. 1 is legal and valid. The deficit consideration money is sought to be realised in the certificate proceeding which, according to the defendant No. 1 is legal and valid. ( 4 ) THE learned trial court framed issues which arise out of the pleadings and came to a conclusion that there was no valid forest contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. He, therefore, held that the question of termination of the contract did not arise for consideration as in the absence of a valid contract, the coupe could be resolved at any time by the authorities. He further held that assuming that there was a valid forest contract, the termination thereof was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the security money could not be forfeited by the authorities. It is for that reason, the court also recorded a finding that the claim made in the certificate case is not tenable and it was declared to be void ab initio. He also disallowed the claim of Rs. 1000/- by way of damages finding that there was no question of breach of contract in the absence of a valid contract coming into existence. He, therefore, decreed the suit in part directing the refund of a sum of Rs. 4150/ - with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of recovery and also declared the certificate proceeding to be void. ( 5 ) THE main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether there was a valid forest contract between the parties as most of the other questions would be dependent on the finding on this point. Admittedly the defendants took part in the auction sale of the coupe in question which was held on 13-9-1965 and he was the highest bidder. The defendant No. 4 was conducting the auction sale, but he was not the final autthority to accept the offer of the plaintiff. The Chief Conservator of Forests (defendant No. 2) is the proper authority who was to accept the offer whereafter a written contract was to be executed. It is also admitted that the plaintiff received a letter from the Divisional Forest Officer intimating him that he being the highest bidder having offered Rs. The Chief Conservator of Forests (defendant No. 2) is the proper authority who was to accept the offer whereafter a written contract was to be executed. It is also admitted that the plaintiff received a letter from the Divisional Forest Officer intimating him that he being the highest bidder having offered Rs. 41,500/- for the divisional lot in question has been accepted by the concerned authority to operate the coupe and he was required to pay the consideration money in four instalments on the dates as mentioned in the body of the said letter. In the said letter he was asked to furnish coupe declaration certificate and to commence the work after payment of the first instalment on the date mentioned therein. He was also required to comply with the other formalities necessary for starting of the work. On receipt of this document, the plaintiff appears to have insisted upon execution of the written agreement, the bank form which is said to have been signed by his authorised agent on the date of acution. It is correct to say that unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the parties and the State of Orissa being one of the parties to the agreement and the requirement of Article 299 of the Constitution is complied with, the agreement though complete in all respect cannot be enforced as against the State. This, however, does not mean that there was no agreement between the parties till the date when it was signed by the proper authority on behalf of the State. The trial court has proceeded on the basis that until and unless the agreement is signed by the proper authority on behalf of the State, there was no agreement at all. This view cannot be supported in law inasmuch as a written agreement may be enforceable retrospectively. There can be no doubt from the circumstances appearing on record that after giving the highest. bid, it was only the acceptance of the competent authority which was necessary for completion of agreement between the parties. By the letter Ext. D the plaintiff was communicated that his highest bid had been accepted by competent authority and he was to proceed with the operation of the coupe after deposit of the first instalment. bid, it was only the acceptance of the competent authority which was necessary for completion of agreement between the parties. By the letter Ext. D the plaintiff was communicated that his highest bid had been accepted by competent authority and he was to proceed with the operation of the coupe after deposit of the first instalment. The attitude of the plaintiff that) unless the written agreement comes to his hand, he cannot operate the coupe is thoroughly misconceived and his inaction is not supported by any valid reasons. It has been alleged on behalf of defendant No. l that the delivery of possession of the coupe which was made on 4-11-1965 is evidenced by Ext. 'j'. The plaintiff's plea is that the signature of his authorised agent was obtained on a blank form purporting to be the coupe declaration certificate form. All that was alleged in this behalf in the plaint is as follows: "be it stated here that the signature of the authorised agent who is the brother of the plaintiff was taken in the hand-over form without any date being mentioned therein but it was made clear to him by that time that it will have no effect until the agreement was received. " The brother of the plaintiff who is also his authorised agent was examined as P. W. 1 in the suit. His evidence was that a few months after the form of forest agreement was signed by him, the Range Officer, Kamakshyanagar took a signature from him on coupe delivery form saying that the same would be sent to the concerned authority after being duly filled in. But according to him the delivery of possession in fact have never been effected. The aforesaid explanation does not convince me for the reason that it is not consistent with the pleading of the plaintiff. Paragraph 3 of the plaint read as a whole would indicate that the aforesaid coupe declaration certificate form was not signed by P. W. 1 on the date of auction which was being conducted by the D. F. O. , Dhenkanal. P. W. 1 in his evidence has stated that the said form was signed by him at the request of the Range Officer, Kamakshyanagar a few months after the date of auction. The said coupe declaration certificate form which has been marked as Ext. P. W. 1 in his evidence has stated that the said form was signed by him at the request of the Range Officer, Kamakshyanagar a few months after the date of auction. The said coupe declaration certificate form which has been marked as Ext. 'j' shows that it was submitted to the D. F. O. , Dhenkanal Division for information and necessary action by memorandum No. 1554 dated 23-12-65. Under these circumstances, I accept Ext. 'j' to be a valid document under which delivery of possession was made over to the plaintiff on 4-11-1965. The plaintiff, however, appears to have been then insisting that the forest agreement must be made over to him after being signed duly by the competent authority for which reason even though the delivery of coupe was made to him, he neither deposited the consideration money nor did he operate the coupe after complying with the other formalities. As a consequence, defendant No. 1 terminated the forest contract which is evidenced by Ext. M. Ext. N is a copy of the order of the Conservator of Forest, Orissa intimating the plaintiff to deposit the defaulted consideration amount within a month hence failing which the contract shall stand terminated. It conforms to the requirement of Rule 34 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, 1966. The plaintiff raised a dispute in the suit that the order in Ext. M. has not been communicated to him and without such communication the termination of the contract cannot be held to be valid. The defendants exhibited a receipt purported to have been signed by the plaintiff. His signature having been marked as Ext. N/ I and the recital is to the effect that he has received the notice copy of which is Ext. N, the learned trial court did not accept it to be a valid receipt for the reason that no effort was made by the defendants to get the signature examined by a handwriting expert. But as I find from the records the plaintiff has not denied the signature appearing in the Ext. N, in his evidence. The plaintiff was also silent about it. In the circumstances, I do not think that it was necessary for the defendants to require the said signature to be examined by an expert. ( 6 ) EXT. But as I find from the records the plaintiff has not denied the signature appearing in the Ext. N, in his evidence. The plaintiff was also silent about it. In the circumstances, I do not think that it was necessary for the defendants to require the said signature to be examined by an expert. ( 6 ) EXT. M, however, further narrates that the security money shall be forfeited and many other consequences which would ensue because of the termination of the contract. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, 1966 enumerates the consequence-, that would follow when a forest contract is terminated. Sub-rule (1) of the said rule authorises "the authority competent to execute the agreement" to terminate the same, whereas sub-rule (3) authorises the Government to pass consequential order after the contract is terminated. One of the consequences being forfeiture of the security deposit of the contractor, the order in that behalf could be passed by the State Govt. not by the Conservator of Forest the authority who executed the contract. From Ext. M, it is apparent that it is the competent authority under the Forest Act who passed the order forfeiting the security deposit. Thus, the order of forfeiture was without jurisdiction having not been passed by the state Government, who is the authority empowered under the Rule to do so. ( 7 ) SO far as the certificate proceeding is concerned, the same is also a consequence which follows on account of the termination of the contract as after the termination of the contract the forest coupe in question was reacutioned and the loss suffered by the Government in this process is sought to be recovered in the certificate proceeding. It was urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents that the initiation of the certificate proceeding would also be without jurisdiction as the same has not been initiated by orders of the proper authority. The said question does not arise for consideration in this suit for the reason that the certificate proceeding has been sought to be declared as invalid for the reasons that there was no valid contract between the plaintiff and the Govt. Whether the certificate proceeding has been initiated by orders of any authority competent in that behalf is a question left open to be decided in the certificate proceeding itself. Whether the certificate proceeding has been initiated by orders of any authority competent in that behalf is a question left open to be decided in the certificate proceeding itself. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, I would hold that the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The suit would be decreed to the extent of refund of the security deposit together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of its recovery, but relief prayed for in respect of the certificate proceeding is hereby refused. ( 9 ) THERE shall be no order as to cost so far as this appeal is concerned. Order accordingly. .