Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7867 of 2001
PETITIONER:
PARAS RAM
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7867 OF 2001
WITH
C.A.NO.7868/2001; C.A. NO.7869/2001 & C.A. NO.7870/2001
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 24/11/2000 passed
by the Division Bench in DBCWP Nos.1088/2000, 1267/2000, 1276/2000 & 1270/2000.
Since the question involved in these appeals are identical, we are taking the facts from
C.A. No.7867/2001.
We have heard the parties at length.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.
Pursuant to a tender notice dated 9/2/1999, the appellant made an offer by its lette
r
dated 30/3/1999. The said offer was subject to the following condition:
"CONDITION
That during the term of Financial Year 1999-2000
and 2000-2001, if any Liquor/Beer Group in the State of
Rajasthan
.....2.
- 2 -
is granted any financial or policy based benefit or benefits
in exclusive privilege amount, then the same benefit shall, in
proportionate manner, be given in respect of Kota
Liquor/Beer Group also."
The aforesaid offer was provisionally accepted by a letter dated 30/3/1999. It appe
ars
that in the letter provisionally accepting the offer there is no mention that condition
mentioned in the offer letter is rejected. On the other hand, a close reading of the
acceptance letter dated 30/3/1999 clearly shows that the offer by the appellant with the
condition was accepted. In our opinion, the word ’provisionally’ in the acceptance letter
dated 30/3/1999 only means that the offer of the appellant (with the condition) was
accepted subject to his complying with the formalities mentioned in that letter.
It appears that the financial benefits for other Liquor/Beer groups in Rajasthan
during the financial year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was not extended to the appellant.
Aggrieved thereby, they preferred a writ petition.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The High Court was of the view that the condition which was offered and accepted by
the State does not appear in the licence and on this sole ground the writ petition
was
......3.
- 3 -
dismissed. The finding of the High Court, in our view, is clearly erroneous. As already
noted, the appellant’s offer with the condition has been accepted by the respondent
without any demur. Since the offer has been accepted by the respondent the benefit
during the financial year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was also available to the appellant if
the same has been granted to any other Liquor/Beer group in the State of Rajasthan.
Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the condition in the
offer was not accepted by the respondents and, therefore, the appelalnts are not entitled
for any benefits during those financial years. We do not agree. We repeatedly asked the
counsel for the respondent to show us in the letter of acceptance anywhere where it is
mentioned that the condition was not accepted. There is no answer forthcoming to this
query. Even otherwise, a reading of the letter of acceptance dated 30/3/1999 does not
disclose that the conditional offer by the appellant was rejected. On the contrary, the
offer was accepted with the condition. Hence, it was a concluded contract under Section
7 of the Contract Act.
.......4.
- 4 -
For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned judgment of the High Court is not tenable
in law. It is, accordingly, set aside. The appeals are allowed. No costs.