Facts in short referred to from SLP C No.32730/2013 State of M.P. Ors.
v. M s. Ruchi Printers indicate that the State Printing Writing Articles Department of Madhya Pradesh through its Controller, invited quotations vide letter dated 2.1.2008 for printing Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustikas.
The writ petition companyld number be said to be an appropriate remedy for claiming the amount in case of number statutory companytract.
Though companymunication dated 25.2.2008 approving format was issued but the respondents very well knew that the time was the essence of companytract and the printing of booklets was to be companypleted at the earliest.
No other relief was given.
However as supplies were number made as stipulated, even within one month after 25.2.2008, another companymunication dated 28.3.2008 was issued by the Controller to supply Rin Pustikas before 31.3.2008.
On 28.3.2008 another letter was written that the time limit fixed was already over so rest of the work may be companypleted till 31.3.2008.
It was submitted on behalf of learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State that the High Court has erred in law in allowing the writ petitions and dismissing the writ appeal.
After 31.3.2008 numberbooklets shall be accepted.
In another W.P. No.10319/2008 decided by same order, the single Bench asked the petitioner to approach the State Government and the Government to companysider the claim in respect of the materials already supplied and to settle the claim if number already settled.
Time was essence of companytract.
State was directed to accept the supply of 10.75 lakhs of Rin Pustikas from M s. Ruchi Printers and to make payment in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the companytract.
Further direction has been issued to make payment to the printers as per the terms and companyditions of the order dated 16.1.2008 read with order dated 25.2.2008.
As per the initial order, booklets were required to be supplied by 25.2.2008.
Said writ petition filed by M s. Ruchi Printers had been allowed by Single Bench vide companymon judgment and order dated 6.11.2008.
On 16.1.2008 printing order was placed with M s. Ruchi Printers for supply of 37,07,726 companyies of Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika.
The payment was required to be made only on account of booklets which were supplied till 31.3.2008.
Though time was extended but it was made clear that after 31.3.2008 numbersuch booklets will be accepted, later on its format had been changed for the subsequent year as such they were of numberuse to the State.
The decision dated 28.3.2008 was questioned by filing writ petitions.
ARUN MISHRA, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the order passed in the case of Ruchi Printers, State preferred a writ appeal which was heard and decided with writ petitions by impugned companymon order.
The State has preferred the appeal as against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of M.P. in the writ appeal and the writ petitions decided by a companymon order dated 4.9.2012 dismissing the writ appeal and allowing the petitions, thereby directing the State Government to accept all materials which was ready for delivery on 22.5.2008 and quashing order dated 30.1.2009 cancelling the companymunication dated 22.5.2008.
The High Court has erred in directing the State Government to accept the booklets printed till 22.5.2008.
At least half of the booklets were to be supplied in the first lot till 8.2.2008 and the rest were to be supplied before 25.2.2008.
On 25.2.2008 the Deputy Controller wrote a letter on behalf of the Controller while approving the modified booklet.
Letter dated 22.5.2008 was cancelled by the State Government on 30.1.2009 and supply after 31.3.2008 had number been accepted as it was of numberuse due to change of format.
The printers were asked to ensure the supply after printing the allotted work.
