Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Bridge Construction Corporation. 2. Petitioner is the company working in the area of advertisement. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the letter no. 428 dated 9.4.2007 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Engineer, South Bihar Circle, State Bridge Construction Corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), whereby petitioners appointment as sole agent for advertising commercial publicity on newly constructed Chiraiyatand bridge has been cancelled due to non execution of agreement within the stipulated period as mentioned in Letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007. 3. In response to the Corporation advertisement inviting tender for "Right of commercial publicity for newly built Chiraiyatand bridge", petitioner submitted his tender papers. He was selected and appointed as sole agent for commercial publicity vide letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2. This letter specified certain terms and conditions and one of them was that the petitioner has to execute an agreement on non judicial stamp paper within 15 days from the date of issuance of this letter. 4. Petitioners case is that on receipt of letter dated 15.1.2007 he solicited direction and information from respondent no.2 by sending a letter on 19.1.2007. In this letter he also requested for providing draft copy of agreement prepared in the office of respondent no.2. He was waiting for draft copy of agreement in view of the precedent and practice prevailing in Government Departments and Corporations. The form of contract and contract deed has to be prepared by the department as this is the mandatory requirement as per Rules 168, 169 and 170 of the P.W.D. Code. The Bihar Financial Rules also specially lays down in Rule 246(2) that the form of contract shall be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with its law officer. Petitioners case is that despite his repeated request the draft copy of agreement was not supplied by respondent no. 2 on the ground that the form of agreement is not available in the office of the Corporation. Petitioner was served with letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 whereby he was directed to execute an agreement on non judicial stamp paper within eight days of issuance of the letter. On receipt of this letter petitioner visited the office of respondent no. 2 on the ground that the form of agreement is not available in the office of the Corporation. Petitioner was served with letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 whereby he was directed to execute an agreement on non judicial stamp paper within eight days of issuance of the letter. On receipt of this letter petitioner visited the office of respondent no. 2 for demanding the draft copy of agreement but the office staff said that the petitioner himself should get it prepared, typed on one hundred rupees non judicial stamp paper and submit it in the office of the Corporation for its execution. Petitioner on 7.4.2007 sent the deed of agreement with security money in the shape of bank guarantee of Rs. 16,06000/- through courier for executing the agreement. It was duly received in the office of respondent no. 2 well within eight days extended time. The respondent thereafter on 9.4.2007 issued impugned letter no. 428 stating that due to non execution of agreement within stipulated period mentioned in letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007 and time extending through letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 is hereby cancelled. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Chairman of the Corporation it has been stated that the earning revenue was not the motive behind issuance of tender rather it was in the public interest and for providing regular power supply and maintenance of electricity poles of fly over. The petitioner was awarded sole agency right for commercial publicity on certain terms and conditions specified in letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007. All terms and conditions of agreement were specified in this letter. Petitioner had only to get it typed on non judicial stamp paper and present for execution of agreement. Petitioner did not turn up to execute agreement up to March, 2007. Thereafter Chairman himself went as an Observer of Punjab Assembly Election and returned on 2.4.2007. On his return he made an enquiry from Managing Director of the Corporation and came to know about the non execution of agreement. On 3.4.2007 the concerned file was produced before him and he was surprised to see that on that very date vide letter no. 415 the petitioner has been given eight days further time to execute the agreement. On his return he made an enquiry from Managing Director of the Corporation and came to know about the non execution of agreement. On 3.4.2007 the concerned file was produced before him and he was surprised to see that on that very date vide letter no. 415 the petitioner has been given eight days further time to execute the agreement. No action had been taken in this regard in the months of February and March 2007 though on account of inaction on the part of the petitioner in execution of agreement within the stipulated period was delayed. Thereafter cancellation letter was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 428 dated 9.4.2007 and in the meantime on 5.4.2007 and 7.4.2007 petitioners letter including Draft Agreement was received in the office of Managing Director of the Corporation. This indicated petitioners connivance with the Dealing Assistant and Officers of the organization who got issued letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 from Corporation. It has been stated that the disciplinary action has been taken against Dealing Assistant and Principal Secretary of R.C.D. for such act and omission. 6. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and rival contention, I find that the Chairman of the Corporation in his counter affidavit has not denied that the Draft Agreement as per Rules 168, 169 and 170 of the P.W.D. Code read with Bihar Financial Rules 246(2) has not made it mandatory for Government Departments and Corporation to furnish draft agreement to the selected contractors/ agents, incorporating terms and conditions for the purposes of execution of agreement. 7. It has also not been stated that the Draft Agreement was supplied to the parties, object behind these mandatory P.W.D. Rules and Bihar Financial Rule is to safeguard the interest of Government Department and Corporation. In case contractors are left to prepare Draft Agreement and place it for execution of the agreement it will create a situation of anarchism and contractors will start preparing agreement taking into account their on safeguard and benefits considering its suitability for their own interest. Inconsistent agreement will get to be executed ignoring interest of Government Departments and Corporation. In case contractors are left to prepare Draft Agreement and place it for execution of the agreement it will create a situation of anarchism and contractors will start preparing agreement taking into account their on safeguard and benefits considering its suitability for their own interest. Inconsistent agreement will get to be executed ignoring interest of Government Departments and Corporation. Once it is admitted by the respondents that they failed to comply the mandatory rules as provided under Rules 168, 169 and 170 of P.W.D. Code as well as Bihar Financial Rules 246(2) the petitioner cannot be blamed for non fulfilling the terms and conditions mentioned in letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007. The agreement could not be executed within fifteen days stipulated time as respondents failed in comply their contractual liability. 8. Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General defending the case of respondents has submitted that the stand taken by the petitioner that immediately after receiving letter dated 15.1.2007 they solicited advice of respondent no. 2 and requested for supply of Draft Agreement by sending letter on 19.1.2007 is incorrect. The official records do not indicate receiving of any such letter. 9. Mr. Tarakant Jha, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in reply has submitted that the petitioner is not answerable for this if official records of the Corporation is not properly managed, it is certain that letter was dispatched by the petitioner on 19.1.2007. In any case this is irrelevant since there is no denial by the respondents that the Draft agreement was not supplied till the date of issuance of cancellation letter. This being the admission on the part of the respondents, they failed to discharge their contractual liability and for that petitioner cannot be blamed for inaction and non execution of agreement. I find substance in the submission of the petitioners counsel and the ground taken by the respondents for cancellation of sole agency advertising right of the petitioner is not available to respondents. 10. Another submission of the learned Advocate General is that from the connected official record, it is evident that on 3.4.2007 itself an order was passed regarding cancellation of petitioners appointment as sole agent on the basis of letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007, but official staff of the Corporation in connivance with the petitioner got delayed despatched of this order till 9.4.2007 and instead despatched letter no. 74 dated 15.1.2007, but official staff of the Corporation in connivance with the petitioner got delayed despatched of this order till 9.4.2007 and instead despatched letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 giving further eight days time to the petitioner for execution of agreement. This submission is in contradiction of the statement in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. In this paragraph it is stated that when the concerned file was produced Chairman found that vide letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 the petitioner has been given further eight days time for execution of agreement. The Chairman of the Corporation in spite of that if passed order in the file it is not going to affect the case of the petitioner. Admittedly the letter of ancellation/revocation was issued on 9.4.2007 which is duly signed by respondent no. 2 on that very date. In the letter impugned there is reference of letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 so it cannot be said that prior to issuance of letter no. 415 dated 3.4.2007 any order was passed in the connected file. If this is so it is ante dated. 11. Section 5 of the Contract Act deals with revocation of proposal and acceptance. A proposal may be revoked by the proposer any time before communication of its acceptance is complete as against proposer. In the present case prior to despatch of letter no. 428 dated 9.4.2007, petitioner submitted duly typed agreement on non-judicial stamp paper with security money in the office of respondent Corporation on 7.4.2007. This fact has been admitted in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit reads like this: "That it is pertinent to mention here that the said cancellation order was communicated to petitioner vide letter no. 428 dated 9.4.2007 (Annexure-1) and in the mean time on 5.4.2007 and 7.4.2007 respectively petitioners letter including draft agreement was received in the office of Managing Director of the Corporation." 12. Considering this admission the letter of cancellation can only be treated as an arbitrary exercise of power by the Chairman of the Corporation. 13. Lastly Mr. Tarakant Jha, Senior counsel has submitted that impugned order is without jurisdiction as the Chairman has got no power either to accept or cancel the agreement. This power is vested in the Managing Director, but here in the present case there is admission of Chairman that he passed order of cancellation. 13. Lastly Mr. Tarakant Jha, Senior counsel has submitted that impugned order is without jurisdiction as the Chairman has got no power either to accept or cancel the agreement. This power is vested in the Managing Director, but here in the present case there is admission of Chairman that he passed order of cancellation. On this ground also impugned order issued under the signature of respondent no. 2 communicating the cancellation order passed by the Chairman of the Corporation is illegal and without jurisdiction. 14. I find that this is also one of the ground for holding the impugned order illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and it should be quashed. The respondents are directed to accept and sign the agreement submitted by the petitioner on 7.4.2007. 15. Accordingly the impugned letter no. 428 dated 9.4.2007 is quashed and this application is allowed.