Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1243 (RAJ)

RIICO Ltd. v. Goyal Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd.

2013-07-10

DINESH MISHRA, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2012 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition (CWP No. 3888/2009) filed on the grievance of the respondent (the respondent herein) against cancellation of the allotment of an industrial plot in the Industrial Area at Niwai on the alleged ground of the petitioners failure to make requisite payment within time. The learned Single Judge found the so called delay being not attributable to the writ petitioner; and the respondents being rather unreasonable in their stand. 2. Put in a nutshell, the relevant background aspects of the matter are o that in response to an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of industrial land at Niwai, the writ-petitioner Company made an application and was permitted to participate in the limited bidding with the requirement of depositing Rs. 60,000/- as earnest money and further requirement of depositing 10% of the payable amount immediately at the time of allotment. 5 The writ-petitioner participated in the bidding held on 26.05.2008; and an industrial plot bearing number D-261 ad-measuring 5,000 sq. mtrs. came to be allotted to it after acceptance of its offer at Rs. 640/- per sq. mtr. The writ- Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards earnest: and made payment of the requisite amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of demand draft dated 26.05.2008. 3. Thereafter, under a communication bearing number 484 dated 11.06.2008 (Annex.5), the Senior Regional Manager of the appellant RIICO at Sawai Madhopur proceeded to call upon the writ-petitioner to make payment of further an amount of Rs. 4,72,000/- within 7 days of the 'date of dispatch of the letter. 4. The case of the writ-petitioner had been that the aforesaid communication was received on 17.06.2008 and in compliance thereof, the demand draft (Annex.6) was obtained on 19.06.2008, which was offered on 20.06.2008 to the said Senior Regional Manager, who asked the same to be sent with a covering letter and hence, the same was sent with a letter on 21.06.2008. The case of the writ-petitioner had been that the aforesaid communication was received on 17.06.2008 and in compliance thereof, the demand draft (Annex.6) was obtained on 19.06.2008, which was offered on 20.06.2008 to the said Senior Regional Manager, who asked the same to be sent with a covering letter and hence, the same was sent with a letter on 21.06.2008. The grievance of the writ- petitioner had been that despite itself having taken all timely steps, and being ready and willing, to make payment without delay, the officers of the RIICO declined to accept the offered payment and on the other hand, issued the communication dated 20.06.2008 (Annex.8) purportedly withdrawing the letter dated 11.06.2008 with forfeiture of the deposited amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-. The writ- petitioner submitted that the representations and requests made for consideration of its case were also declined by RIICO in a wholly unjustified manner and on untenable grounds. 5. The appellant RIICO submitted in opposition that the demand notice issued to the writ-petitioner was definitely served upon it prior to 17.06.2008 because the acknowledgment received back at Sawai Madhopur carried the stamp of Sawai Madhopur Post Office dated 17.06.2008. It was submitted that admittedly, the authorised representative of the writ-petitioner was out of country on 17.06.2008 and thus, the payment was not made within time; and the writ-petitioner sent the demand draft dated 19.06.2008 for a sum of Rs. 4,72,000/- only on 21.06.2008 whereas the allotment had already been canceled on 20.06.2008. 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court found untenable the stand of the RIICO and observed that the writ-petitioner had acted bona fide and with promptitude. The learned Single Judge also found unjustified the proposition of the appellant RIICO in asking the writ-petitioner to deposit the amount within 7 days of the 'date of dispatch of the letter and observed that the deposit having been made by the writ-petitioner within reasonable time from the date of receipt of the letter, the same ought to be taken as true compliance. The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition, inter alia, with the following observations : "The fact that the draft was prepared on the very next date of receipt of letter dated 17.6.2008 indicates genuine bona fide and promptitude on the part of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition, inter alia, with the following observations : "The fact that the draft was prepared on the very next date of receipt of letter dated 17.6.2008 indicates genuine bona fide and promptitude on the part of the petitioner. The stand of the respondents in conveying to the petitioner that he should deposit the remaining amount within seven days from the date of dispatch and that too when the consumed entire seven days in the transit till the letter was actually delivered to the petitioner, cannot be said to be reasonable. The deposit having been made within reasonable time i.e. within seven days from the date of receipt, it should be taken as true compliance, especially because respondents have not been able to show any rule or instruction saying that the period of seven days should be counted from the date of dispatch of letter and not from the date of communication, which was otherwise cannot be reasonable. As regards the delay, the delay cannot be said to be attributed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is now required to submit a new draft of Rs. 4,72,000 to the respondents within fifteen days from today." 7. Seeking to question the order so passed, the learned counsel for the appellant RIICO has strenuously argued that the postal seal on the acknowledgment clearly shows that the letter dated 11.06.2008 had been received by the writ-petitioner much prior to 17.06.2008. According to the learned counsel, the seal of Sawai Madhopur Post Office on the acknowledgment being of 17.06.2008, it is but apparent that the letter was received by the writ-petitioner at Jaipur much before 17.06.2008 and there being gross inaction on the part of the writ-petitioner, rejection of allotment on 20.06.2008 was neither unreasonable nor unjustified. 8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we find nothing of error or infirmity in the observations as made and the order as passed by the learned Single Judge; and we are clearly of the view that no case for interference is made out. 9. The writ-petitioner had, obviously, been a bona fide bidder, who participated in the limited bidding on 25.06.2008 and on being successful, immediately deposited the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. With addition of Rs. 60,000/-already deposited towards earnest, the appellant RIICO had indeed received a sum of Rs. 9. The writ-petitioner had, obviously, been a bona fide bidder, who participated in the limited bidding on 25.06.2008 and on being successful, immediately deposited the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. With addition of Rs. 60,000/-already deposited towards earnest, the appellant RIICO had indeed received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the writ-petitioner at the time of acceptance of the bid. 10. When the bidder (writ-petitioner) was to make further payment towards allotment, the requirement could have only been of making such payment within reasonable time and could not have been unreasonably over-stretched by the appellant RIICO to the brink of absurdity. As per the contents of the letter dated 11.06.2008 (Annex.5), the writ-petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,72,000/- within 7 days of the 'date of dispatch of the letter. Such a stipulation directly offends against the basic norms of fair play and reasonableness; and cannot be approved. 11. It has not been shown to be a matter of such an extraordinary emergency where, contrary to the fundamentals of fair play and the basic principles governing formation of a contract, the writ-petitioner was to be obligated to make payment within 7 days from the date of dispatch of the letter and not from the date of receipt of the letter. 12. In the transaction at hands, where the initial process of offer and the acceptance was completed between the parties on 26.05.2008; and the writ-petitioner had already made payment of a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the appellant RIICO; and the appellant RIICO issued the letter for further payment only on 11.06.2008, it is very difficult to find any logic for the stipulation that the period of 7 days for making further payment would begin to run from the date of dispatch of letter by RIICO and not from the date of its receipt by the addressee. The requirement in such a communication, unless coming to the notice of the addressee, cannot be said to be creating any obligation. On the very first principles of the law of contract, the communication of a proposal is complete only when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. We are clearly of the view that in the transaction of the present nature, the period of 7 days for payment cannot begin to run earlier than the date of receipt of the communication by the addressee. We are clearly of the view that in the transaction of the present nature, the period of 7 days for payment cannot begin to run earlier than the date of receipt of the communication by the addressee. 13. In the present case, the communication dated 11.06.2008 was sent from Sawai Madhopur and was to reach the writ-petitioner at Jaipur. It is alleged by the writ-petitioner that the same was received on 17.06.2008. Even if this assertion is left aside for a moment, it is not the case of the appellant RIICO that the communication was received by the writ-petitioner on 11.06.2008 itself. The acknowledgment does not bear any date of receipt by the addressee. If the seal of the post office at Sawai Madhopur on the acknowledgment bearing date 17.06.2008 is at all taken into consideration, the inference could, at the most, be that a few days prior to 17.06.2008, the letter was received by the writ-petitioner. This inference still cannot reach to the extent that the letter sent from Sawai Madhopur was received by the writ-petitioner at Jaipur on the very date of dispatch, i.e., 11.06.2008. 14. The significant factor in the matter is that the writ-petitioner got prepared the demand draft in the sum of Rs. 4,72,000/- on 19.06.2008. Even if it be assumed that the letter dated 11.06.2008 was received by the writ-petitioner within a day or two, say by 12.06.2008 or 13.06.2008, the demand draft bearing number 537811, as payable to the appellant RIICO at Sawai Madhopur, was indeed obtained by the writ-petitioner on 19.06.2008, i.e., within 7 days from 12.06.2008. There appears no reason to disbelieve the submission of the petitioner that on 20.06.2008 the demand draft was offered to the respondent No. 2, who declined to accept. 15. In the given set of facts and circumstances and the nature of transaction, we are at one with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the propositions of the appellant RIICO cannot be said to be reasonable and the writ-petitioner had definitely acted bona fide with promptitude. The proposition of cancellation of allotment, as immediately attempted on 20.06.2008, suffers from want of reasonableness on the part of the appellant RIICO. 16. The proposition of cancellation of allotment, as immediately attempted on 20.06.2008, suffers from want of reasonableness on the part of the appellant RIICO. 16. In an overall analysis, the writ issued by the learned Single Judge in the present case remains justified from every stand point; and we are clearly of the view that this appeal remains bereft of substance. 17. Accordingly and in view of the above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order dated 01.03.2013 stands vacated. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******