JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. (Oral): This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri V. K. Ahuja, District Judge, Nahan dated 02.03.1989, whereby the appeal of the defendant-respondent State has been accepted and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed, thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Pritam Singh, Sub Judge, 1st Class dated 30.10.1986 whereby the suit was decreed for damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with costs and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its institution till the realisation of the entire amount 2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff had set up an agricultural unit, namely, M/s Jaswal Ban Udyog, with the consent, guidance and control of department of Industries through its representative - defendant No. 2, on the assurance that Babar Grass shall be supplied by the government and its finished goods were also to be purchased by the said department. It was further pleaded that in the year 1980, Babar Grass was supplied to the plaintiff valuing Rs.4000/- and the payment was directly made by defendant No. 2 to the Forest Department and the said Babar Grass was of inferior quality and the plaintiff protested and showed the said grass to defendant No. 2 as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur. However, he was given assurance that the finished goods would be purchased by the Government at the rate of Rs.200A per quintal and as such the grass was accepted by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the said raw material was converted by the plaintiff into finished goods and he approached defendant No. 2 to lift the same, but though the assurance was given, the goods were not purchased by the Govt. and as such the goods decayed in the premises of the plaintiff and could not be disposed of. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff could not pay the installment to the Bank and he suffered loss of Rs.4000/- as the price of the grass Rs.500/-, by way of freight and Rs.150/- for loading and unloading and Rs.8000/- spent for conversion of raw material into finished goods. In all, the plaintiff claimed Rs.16, 650/- by way of damages alongwith interest. 3. In all, the plaintiff claimed Rs.16, 650/- by way of damages alongwith interest. 3. In the written statement, the defendant took up the plea that the unit was set up by the plaintiff with the prior permission of defendant No. l in lieu of the Scheme, but no assurance was given to him and the defendants were assisting him in running his unit. It was stated that the plaintiff voluntarily purchased the grass from the Forest Department and no assurance, whatsoever, was given by the defendants in contravention of Article 299 of the Constitution of India and even if such an assurance had been given by defendant No.2, defendants are not bound by the same and the said officer is personally liable, who has not been impleaded as party. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed: " 1. Whether the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable? OPD. 2. Whether the suit is not properly valued? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? 5. Whether the suit is barred by principle of non-violent fit injuria? OPD. 6. Whether the suit against defendant No. 1 is not legally maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.16, 650/-on account of the act, conduct and breach of promise etc., as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD. 8. Relief." 5. Under Issue No.7, it was held that the plaintiff is only entitled to Rs.10, 000/-. Issues No.3, 5 and 6 were decided against the defendants holding that these were not pressed. Issues No. 2 and 3 though decided against the defendants, but it was held that the Court was competent to grant the relief of damages and in regard to valuation, plaintiff was given 7 days time to make good the Court fee, which was ultimately made good. Under-Issue No.4, it was held that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On these findings, the suit was decreed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court having been set aside by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. On these findings, the suit was decreed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court having been set aside by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned lower appellate Court has non-suited the plaintiff-appellant mainly on the ground that in view of Article 299 of the Constitution of India, since there was no binding agreement or contract between the parties, the defendants were neither enjoined to supply the raw material i.e. the Babar Grass to the plaintiff nor to purchase the finished product, as pleaded by him. With due respect to the learned lower appellate Court, he has gone off on a completely wrong tangent. Admittedly, both the parties in this case are governed by the Scheme, whereby the plaintiff was allowed to set up his unit for converting the raw material into finished goods and to sell to the defendants. In reply to para 2 of the plaint, it has been pleaded in the written statement that: "It is true that in the scheme submitted by the plaintiff, part No. 2 of the scheme gives indication of a sort of assurance about raw material and purchase of finished product by the State Small Industries Corporation (emphasis supplied)...... ..." This clearly implies that an assurance was there on behalf of the defendants about the raw material and purchase of finished product by the State. Therefore, even in the absence of any agreement/contract, as envisaged under Article 299 of the Constitution of India, the State was duty bound to not only supply the raw material but also to purchase the finished products from the plaintiff. Shri V. K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General has referred to the subsequent portion of para 2 aforesaid, wherein it has been mentioned that para 1 of the approval letter dated 30.8.1979, clearly indicates the position which speaks that the department will not be bound to provide raw material but from time to time, the Department has been doing its best to assist the plaintiff in overcoming his problems. 7. This argument of the learned Assistant Advocate General has been clearly met by Shri Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the alleged letter cannot override the scheme by which the parties arc bound. I find force in this argument. 7. This argument of the learned Assistant Advocate General has been clearly met by Shri Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the alleged letter cannot override the scheme by which the parties arc bound. I find force in this argument. Therefore, the finding of the learned lower appellate Court that in the absence of contract/agreement, as envisaged under Article 299 of the Constitution of India, there was no duty cast on the defendants to either supply the raw material or purchase the finished product therefrom from the plaintiff, is illegal and is hereby reversed. 8. As regards the claim of damages, not having been proved by the plaintiff, the learned lower appellate Court has upset the finding of the learned trial Court on conjectures and surmises whereas the judgment of the learned trial Court is based on solid evidence produced by the plaintiff. On this aspect of the case also, the judgment of the lower appellate Court, needs to be reversed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial court restored with costs.