JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Commercial Court, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Court below') in Case No.06/2018 (CIS No.30/2018) whereby the suit for recovery as preferred by the plaintiff – firm has been decreed for an amount of Rs.31,45,500/-with interest @ 9% per annum. Vide the judgment, defendants No.1 to 3 i.e. Forest Department of the State has been directed to pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff through defendants No.4 & 5 i.e. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Limited (RSSCL). 2. The plaintiff firm preferred the suit with the averments that an agreement for supply of Vegetables Seeds Kits was entered into between the plaintiff – firm and defendant No.4 – Corporation (RSSCL) in the month of June 2007. The agreement initially was to expire on 31.03.2008 but was extended further for a period of 6 months i.e. till September 2008. It was the arrangement between the State and the RSSCL that the Forest Department would, on requirement, direct the RSSCL to arrange for the Vegetables Seeds Kits and the RSSCL in response, would lay order with the plaintiff – firm. The bills as raised by the plaintiff – firm were to be paid by the RSSCL after the amount being received by the State. 3. The Forest Department, vide its letter dated 19.09.2008, directed RSSCL to arrange for 1500 combination no.7 Vegetables Seeds Kits and 1500 Combination No.40 Vegetables Seeds Kits to be distributed to the farmers in range Siwana. The order qua the same was laid by RSSCL in pursuance thereof and vide challan dated 07.10.2008, the said kits were delivered by the plaintiff – firm at Udaipur office of RSSCL. After receipt at Udaipur office, the said kits were sent by RSSCL to Barmer office of the Forest Department. The samples were even sent to Laboratory at Chittorgarh and vide report dated 03.12.2008, the said samples were found to be of the prescribed standards. 4. The grievance of the plaintiff firm was that the bills amounting to Rs.33,97,500/-qua the above mentioned kits were not paid to it despite repeated demand vide letters dated 06.06.2009, 15.07.2009 & 25.08.2009. The samples were even sent to Laboratory at Chittorgarh and vide report dated 03.12.2008, the said samples were found to be of the prescribed standards. 4. The grievance of the plaintiff firm was that the bills amounting to Rs.33,97,500/-qua the above mentioned kits were not paid to it despite repeated demand vide letters dated 06.06.2009, 15.07.2009 & 25.08.2009. The bill amount was even demanded by RSSCL from the Forest Department but the same was not released and therefore, the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.42,07,106/-was preferred by the plaintiff firm against the defendants. 5. In the written statement preferred by defendants No.1 to 3 i.e. the State Department, it was averred that the Department has wrongly been impleaded in the suit as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant -Department and therefore, the plaintiff could not claim any relief against the Department. It was further averred that the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the RSSCL and further process after delivery of the material was a subject matter between the Department and the RSSCL and the same, in no manner related to the plaintiff. 6. It was further averred that the agreement in question expired on 30.09.2008 and admittedly, the Vegetables Seeds Kits had been delivered on 07.10.2008 i.e. after the stipulated period. Therefore, the same being in contravention to the conditions of the contract could not have been accepted by RSSCL. Further, in terms of the agreement, the material was to be supplied/delivered by the firm at Udaipur only and the office of RSSCL at Udaipur was to deliver the same at Barmer. The firm had no role whatsoever, thereafter but just because the material was being delivered after the stipulated date, in connivance with RSSCL, the firm, on its own, delivered the material at Siwana office of the State Department. Firstly, the condition of agreement was to deliver the seeds kits at Barmer and not Siwana and secondly, the material was to be delivered by RSSCL and not by the plaintiff. Therefore, the delivery itself being in contravention with the conditions of the contract, the State Department is not under an obligation to pay the amount qua the said material. The responsibility, if any, would be of RSSCL only. 7. Therefore, the delivery itself being in contravention with the conditions of the contract, the State Department is not under an obligation to pay the amount qua the said material. The responsibility, if any, would be of RSSCL only. 7. So far as defendants No.4 & 5 i.e. RSSCL is concerned, it admitted in its written statement almost all the averments as raised by the plaintiff – firm. So far as the amount qua the bills is concerned, it was averred that the amount was payable by RSSCL to the firm after the receipt of the same from the State Department. As the State had not released the amount, the same could not be paid and the same would be paid to the firm as soon as it is received by the State Department. 8. A rejoinder to the written statement as preferred by defendants No.1 to 3, was filed by the plaintiff – firm wherein it was averred that the office of the Forest Department was very well aware of the facts and even supply of the material in question. The demand for supply of material was raised by the Forest Department on 26.09.2008 i.e. before the expiry of the agreement in question and vide the said letter, RSSCL was directed to supply the material within a period of 15 days. Admittedly, the said period of 15 days expired on 11.10.2008 and the material was supplied on 07.10.2008 i.e. before expiry of the prescribed time. 9. It was further averred that the State Department admittedly received the supplied material and even distributed the same to the farmers. Had the Department no intention to receive the material, it could have returned the same at very first instance but the Department, without returning the same, used it for the purpose it was demanded. So far as the transportation of the material from Udaipur to Siwana is concerned, it was averred that the same was not made by the firm but it was transported by RSSCL only. It was therefore averred that the disputes regarding the demand, supply, delivery etc. if any, are between the Department and the RSSCL and the plaintiff – firm cannot be penalised for the same. It is admitted that the plaintiff supplied the material as demanded therefore, it is entitled for payment of the same. 10. It was therefore averred that the disputes regarding the demand, supply, delivery etc. if any, are between the Department and the RSSCL and the plaintiff – firm cannot be penalised for the same. It is admitted that the plaintiff supplied the material as demanded therefore, it is entitled for payment of the same. 10. On basis of the pleadings as made, learned Court below framed the following eight issues : ^^1- vk;k oknh QeZ eSllZ tSu dsfedYl ,.M lhM~l lIyk;lZ ds }kjk izfroknh la[;k&4 ds lkFk lCth cht ds dhV~l lIykbZ dk ,d vuqca/k fu"ikfnr gqvk Fkk vkSj mDr vuqca/k ds vUrxZr okn i= dh dye la[;k&4 esa of.kZrkuqlkj dqy 33]97]500@& :i, ds lCth cht ds dhV~l oknh ds }kjk lIykbZ fd, x,] ftuesa ls izfroknh la[;k&4 ds }kjk oknh dks 31]45]500@& :i, vnk djus Fks \ oknh 2- vk;k oknh QeZ cdk;k jkf’k 31]45]500@& :i, ij fnukad 07-10-2008 ls fnukad 06-01-2011 rd C;kt dh jkf'k 15 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls 10]61]606@& :i, dqy 42]07]106@& :i, izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ oknh 3- vk;k oknh }kjk vuqca/k vof/k fnuakd 30-09-2008 dks lekIr gksus ds ckn fnukad 07-10-2008 dks cht dhV~l vkiwfrZ fd, tkuk voS/k ,oa vuqca/k dh 'krksZ ds fo:) gS \ izfroknh la0 1 ls 3 4- vk;k izfroknh ou foHkkx dk oknh ls dksbZ ysuk nsuk ugha Fkk vkSj mls xyr i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS \ izfroknh la0 1 ls 3 5- vk;k izfroknh la0 1 ls 3 dh vksj ls la;qDr :i ls izLrqr tckonkok dh dye la[;k 6 yxk;r 8 esa of.kZrkuqlkj oknh ds }kjk lCth dhV~l dh vkiwfrZ esa dh x;h vfu;ferrk,a ,oa vkiwfrZ fu;e fo:) gksus ls rFkk cht fuxe] QeZ ,oa lacaf/kr oudfeZ;ksa dh Hkwfedk esa "kM;a= jgus ls izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 3 dk Hkqxrku gsrq dksbZ mRrjnkf;Ro ugha curk gS \ izfroknh la0 1 ls 3 6- vk;k oknh dh 15 izfr'kr C;kt dh ekax vuqfpr gS\ izfroknh la0 1 ls 3 7- vk;k vuqca/k dh 'krZ la[;k 16 ds vuqlkj lIykbZ fd, x, eky dh jkf'k izkIr ugha gksus ls oknh dk okn izfroknhx.k la0 4 o 5 ds fo:) izhesP;wj gks fujLr ;ksX; gS vkSj bl dkj.k dksbZ jkf'k oknh muls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS \ izfroknh la0 1 ls 3 8- vuqrks"k \** 11. While deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. While deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant – State raised only two grounds before this Court firstly, that the material was supplied after the expiry of the period of contract which could not have been received by the RSSCL on the said date and hence the State Department was under no obligation to pay the amount qua the same. Secondly, the material was to be supplied at Barmer whereas the same was supplied at Siwana in contravention to the demand as raised and therefore also, the State Department was not liable to pay the amount qua the said material. Learned counsel submitted that the material was accepted by the RSSCL in contravention to the conditions of the agreement and therefore, it is only the RSSCL which would be responsible and the State Department cannot be held liable to pay the amount. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 – plaintiff has opposed the appeal. 14. Learned Court below while deciding issues No.3 and 5 arrived to the following findings : (i) The demand was raised by defendant No.3 before expiry of agreement and vide the said demand order, defendant No.4 was directed to arrange for supply of material within a period of 15 days. Admittedly, the supply was made on the 11th day of the demand/order and therefore, the same cannot be termed to be in contravention to the agreement. (ii) The material was transported to Siwana by defendant No.4, which fact has been admitted by D.W.1 Tarun Mehra. (iii) The delivery of the material was accepted by the officer of the Forest Department at Barmer vide its letter Exhibit-32 and once the fact of delivery of the goods by the Department was admitted, the plaintiff was under no obligation to prove the same. (iv) The fact of receipt of the material and further the distribution of the same to the farmers was also proved on record vide inquiry report Exhibit-45 as well as the distribution register. (v) The officer of the Department had admitted that the material as demanded was supplied and there was no shortage of quantity in the material supplied. The said fact was also evident from the letter dated 18.07.2012 which was annexed along with the inquiry report. 15. (v) The officer of the Department had admitted that the material as demanded was supplied and there was no shortage of quantity in the material supplied. The said fact was also evident from the letter dated 18.07.2012 which was annexed along with the inquiry report. 15. We have perused the complete record as well as the judgment as passed by the learned Court below. 16. So far as the delivery of Vegetables Seeds Kits is concerned, the same is not disputed. The only dispute is firstly, whether the same could have been delivered after the expiry of contract period and secondly, whether the same could have been accepted by RSSCL after the said period. Further, whether the State Department would be liable to pay the amount qua the Kits received in view of the fact that the same were received in contravention to the terms of the contract following a conspiracy between RSSCL, the firm and the employees of the Forest Department. 17. Admittedly, an inquiry was got conducted in the matter by the Forest Department and the Inquiry Report (Exhibit-45) has been exhibited on record. The Inquiry Report as placed on record clarifies that the same was conducted against 11 officers/employees of the Forest Department. 17. Admittedly, an inquiry was got conducted in the matter by the Forest Department and the Inquiry Report (Exhibit-45) has been exhibited on record. The Inquiry Report as placed on record clarifies that the same was conducted against 11 officers/employees of the Forest Department. Against Shri Hansa Ram, Senior Clerk of the office of Deputy Forest Conservator, the Inquiry Officer concluded as under : ^^bl izdkj Jh galkjke us ekSf[kd funsZ'kksa ij fu;e fo:) Ø; vkns'k rS;kj dj mi&ou laj{kd ds le{k izLrqr fd;s] nwjHkk"k ij {kS=h; flokuk dks cht forj.k ds funsZ'k fn;sA** While deciding against Shri Kailash Purohit, the then Regional Forest Officer, Siwana the Inquiry Officer concluded as under : ^^,slk u dj mUgksaus dsoy ofj"B fyfid Jh galkjke ds ekSf[kd funsZ'kksa dks vk/kkj cukrs gq;s :i;s 33-975 yk[k dk leLr cht forfjr djok fn;k tcfd flokuk jsat esa lkeqnkf;d laxBu en esa 3-15 yk[k :i;s dh gh jkf'k miyC/k FkhA** While deciding against Shri Arun Kumar Bora, the then Forest Guard ¼ouiky½] Siwana the Inquiry Officer concluded as under : ^^Jh v:.k dqekj cksMk us izkIr chtksa dks vius Lrj ls lhMhih {kS= ds dk'rdkjksa esa fdlh d`"kd dks de o fdlh dks T;knk fdV forfjr fd;s tks fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds fd;k x;k d`R; FkkA lkFk gh mDr cht Jh cksMk ls lacaf/kr lhMhih ;kstuk ds varxZr vkus okys d`"kdksa dks gh forfjr fd;s tkus pkfg;s Fks tks muds }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA And while deciding against the remaining employees of the Forest Department at Siwana, the Inquiry Officer concluded as under : mDr ouikyksa rFkk ouj{kd us izkIr chtksa dks lhMhih {kS= ds dk'rdkjksa esa fdlh d`"kd dks de o fdlh dks T;knk fdV fcuk fdlh fn'kk&funsZ'kksa o vk/kkj ds forfjr dj fn;sA 18. A perusal of all the above conclusions makes it crystal clear that firstly, the order for Vegetables Seeds Kits was very much placed by the Forest Department to RSSCL and in pursuance to the same, by RSSCL to the firm; secondly, the Kits were received at Siwana office of Forest Department and thirdly, the same were distributed to the farmers at Siwana. 19. The conclusions of the Inquiry Officer reveals that the allegations were of the receipt of the material without the directions/consent of the higher officers at the office of Siwana and further, of irregularities in distribution of the same to the farmers. 19. The conclusions of the Inquiry Officer reveals that the allegations were of the receipt of the material without the directions/consent of the higher officers at the office of Siwana and further, of irregularities in distribution of the same to the farmers. Evidently, no role of the firm can be concluded in the said irregularities or illegalities on behalf of the officers/employees of the Forest Department or RSSCL. 20. Moreover, the Inquiry Report also does not talk of any role of the firm in the said irregularities, if any. In terms of the contract, the firm was required to supply the material in terms of the order placed and nothing more than that. As concluded by the learned Court below, the said kits had been supplied within the time period as demanded and as directed by the officers of RSSCL/Forest Department. Therefore, the findings on issue no.3 to 5 as arrived by the learned Court below being totally in consonance with the oral and documentary evidence available on record, does not deserve any interference and are hereby affirmed. 21. So far as issue no.1 is concerned, as observed above, the supply of the Vegetables Seeds Kits is not in dispute and is proved on record. Irregularities, if any, were on part of the officers of the Forest Department themselves. Therefore, the firm cannot be penalised for misconduct or irregularities on behalf of the officers of the Department. The Kits having been received by the Forest Department and having been distributed to the farmers, it was very much liable to pay the amount qua the said Kits and it cannot evade its responsibility on the ground of the irregularities of its employees. The finding on issue no.1 is also therefore, affirmed. 22. The findings on issues no.1, 3, 4 & 5 having been affirmed, the other issues being consequential to them, the finding on all other issues is also affirmed. 23. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2019 as passed by the Commercial Court, Udaipur is affirmed and present misc. appeal is hereby dismissed. 24. The stay petition and all pending application also stand dismissed.