JUDGEMENT Prakash Chandra Verma, J. 1. This appeal on behalf of the Appellant has been pressed only on one ground that the trial court has erred in relying on agreement, Ext.1, and holding that liability for payment to the Plaintiff Respondent was at the rate of 10 paise their rate has not been approved and the said agreement was not approved by the competent authority. It is submitted that perusal of the same shows that the agreement was for 10 paise per quintal to carry sugar from one place to another place. The aforesaid agreement was not approved by the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, which was condition required in the tender of the notice. 2. I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court has dealt with the issues in detail and has recorded a finding that the work under the contract was completed within the stipulated period of the Plaintiff carried out the work after issue of work order on the basis of agreement executed between the parties contained in Ext.1. The dispute was raised after the work was completed and when the payment was to be made. 3. The fact of the appeal is that the Plaintiff was appointed as an ad hoc handling and Transport contractor for Sugar Godown at Birpur, Saharsa, by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India at Purnia by his letter No. E - 1 (5)/73-T.C.S./931 dated 20.6.73. It is alleged that the Transport Charges for Transporting Sugar from Food Storage depot at Forbesganj in the District of Purnea to the Sugar Godown at Birpur in the district of Saharsa was fixed @ 10 paise per quintal per Kilometer and that it was clearly mentioned in the said letter that the rate was fixed subject to the approval of the Regional Manager F.C.I., Patna. Further case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff being a registered Firm under the Indian partnership Act has been transporting Sugar from the Food storage depot Forbesganj to the Sugar Godown Birpur as and when directed by the authorities of F.C.I. and has been submitted his bills for the transport charges @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. It is alleged that the District Manager Food Corporation of India at Purnea has been paying to the Plaintiff for the said transport charges @ 5 paise per quintal per K.M. with an assurance that the balance amount will be paid after the approval of the Regional Manager Food Corporation of India Patna is received. It is further alleged that the Plaintiff has been always writing to the District Manager F.C.I., Purnea to pay the balance amount of transport charges of sugar from Food storage Depot Forbesganj to sugar go down at Birpur calculated @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. and the District Manager F.C.I. of Purnea has always been writer to the Plaintiff that the letter of the Plaintiff regarding payment of transport charges @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. for transport of Sugar from Food Storage Depot Forbesganj to Sugar Godown Birpur has been forwarded to the Regional Manager, F.C.I., Patna for consideration vide letter No. F-1(5)/T.C.1/ Birpur/76/4599 dated 10.12.76. It is asserted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Regional Manager, F.C.I., Patna by his letter No. D. Sugar (T/A)/76 Pat. Dated 22.1.1977 addressed to the District Manager, F.C.I., Purnea informed him that it was not understood as to how he approached the Regional Manager for sanction of rates when the payment of ad-hoc contractor was within the competence of the District Manager. The Regional Manager, F.C.I. has also sent a similar letter to the District Manager, Purnea dated 25.3.1977. It is further pleaded on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Regional Manager, F.C.I. Patna by his letter No. D- Sugar (T/A),76-77 pat dated 14.7.1977 addressed to the District Manager, F.C.I., Purnea clearly wrote to the District Manager, Purnea as follows: "In continuation of this office letter of even number dated 25.3.1977 on the above subject you are once again requested to settle the issue at your own level and intimate to this office that the payment of arrears have been made to the party concerned. This may please be treated as extreme urgent. This may please be treated as extreme urgent. It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that it is clear from the said letter of the Regional Manager F.C.I. Patna that the fixation of rate for the Transport charges of the sugar from Food storage Depot Forbesganj to Sugar godown at Birpur was within the competency of the District Manager F.C.I. Purnea who by his letter dated 20.6.73 has already fixed the rate at 10 paise per quintal per K.M. and, therefore, there was no question of his taking any approval or sanction of the Regional Manager F.C.I., Patna. It is further pleaded that for some reasons or the others the District Manager F.C.I., Purnea was not agreeable to pay to the Plaintiff the transportation charges of the sugar from Food storage Depot Forbesganj to Sugar godown at Birpur at the contradicted rate of 10 paise per quintal per K.M. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 64613.87 paise is the balance amount due to the Plaintiff from F.C.I Purnea on account of the Transport charges for the transport for the transport of sugar for the food storage depot Farbesganj to sugar godown of Birpur calculated @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. and that full amount of the said claim of the Plaintiff has been fully described in schedule-A given at the foot of the plaint. Further case of the Plaintiff is that notices dated 6.9.1977 were duly served on all the Defendants by registered post through his advocate demanding payment of the said amount. It is alleged that after receipt of the said notice the Regional Manager, F.C.I., Patna by his letter No. 4.10.77 intimated the Plaintiff that the matter was receiving their active consideration and that subsequently the amount of persistent demand made by the Plaintiff and also on account of correspondence made by the Plaintiff, the Regional Manager, F.C.I., Patna and the district Manager of the F.C.I., Purnea became highly annoyed with the Plaintiff and apparently as a result of the annoyance the Plaintiff was intimated by the District Manager through his letter dated 20.1.78 that the payment already made to the Plaintiff @ 5 paise per quintal per K.M. was justified and fair. It is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff wrote to the District Manager, F.C.I., Purnea by his letter dated 27.7.1975 that as for the route from Farbesganj to Birpur the special rate of 10 paise per quintal per K.M. was sanctioned and that was quite fair in view of the odd circumstances prevailing in the said route and the road being damaged hopelessly due to flood and other reasons Finding no alternative the Plaintiff filed this suit for appropriate relief. The cause of action for which arose to the Plaintiff on 21.1.78 when letter No. 1 (5)/73/T.C.S./4369 dated 20.1.78 sent by District Manager, F.C.I., Purneea was received by the Plaintiff rejecting his claim for payment of proper charges of sugar from Food storage Depot Forbesganj to Sugar Godown, Birpur @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. 4. The following issues have been framed for decision in this suit: 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Whether the Plaintiff has valid cause of action to bring this suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as claimed by him? 5. To what other relief or reliefs if any the Plaintiff is entitled? 5. Issue No. 4: The trial court has examined some Witnesses on behalf of the Defendants who have stated that there was documents to prove that the rules and circulars of the F.C.I. provides that the rate for transportation of ad-hoc contractor could be decided only by the R.M. and not by the D.M. but the letters of the Regional Manager, F.C.I., Patna (Exts.1/B,1/C and 1/D) contradict the aforesaid statements of the witnesses of the Defendants. The said letters of the R.M. clearly prove that the District Manager alone was competent to appoint ad-hoc contractors and the D.M.,F.C.I. was the final authority to decide the rate of ad-hoc contractors. But the claim for payment @10 paise per quintal per K.M. was rejected. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that on the principle of Equity and promissory estoppels the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for transportation charges @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. minus the amount already received by the Plaintiff. But the claim for payment @10 paise per quintal per K.M. was rejected. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that on the principle of Equity and promissory estoppels the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for transportation charges @ 10 paise per quintal per K.M. minus the amount already received by the Plaintiff. After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties the trial court found that the District Manager F.C.I., Purnea had fixed the rate of transportation charges of the Plaintiff in his letter dated 20.6.1973 at 10 paise per quintal per K.M. keeping in view the damage road. In view of the discussions and submissions of the parties the trial court found and hold that the claim of the Plaintiff as made out in the plaint is quite proper and justified that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree sought by him. Thus, this issue is accordingly decided in favor of the Plaintiff. 6 Issue No. 3 has not been pressed. Issues No. 1, 2 and 5: The trial court held that the suit as framed is maintainable and that the Plaintiff has got valid cause of action to file this suit against the Defendants and that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as sought for by him. 7. In my opinion, the trial court has rightly held that after the completion of contract it was not open for the Respondent-Appellant to raise objection that the agreement was not approved. The requirement of approval of the rate stood waived of at the moment the work order was placed and work was completed and payment could not have been made on the basis of the claim of the agreement which was a completed contract. If the Appellants were not willing to pay the rate mentioned in the agreement they could have stopped from taking work from the Plaintiff. 8. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed, accordingly.