Page 1

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4817 OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.32730 of 2013]

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. … Appellants Vs. M/s. Ruchi Printers … Respondent(s) [With C.A. No. 4818 of 2016 @ SLP [C] No.36095/2013; and C.A. No. 4819 of 2016 @ SLP [C] No.36096/2013]

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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 common 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  communication  dated  22.5.2008.  Further

Page 2

2

direction has been issued to make payment to the printers as per the terms  

and  conditions  of  the  order  dated  16.1.2008  read  with  order  dated  

25.2.2008.

3. 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.  On  16.1.2008  printing  order  was  placed  with  M/s.  Ruchi  

Printers for supply of 37,07,726 copies of Bhu-Adhikar and Rin Pustika. 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.  The  printers  were  asked  to  ensure  the  supply  after  

printing the allotted work. On 28.3.2008 another letter was written that the  

time limit fixed was already over so rest of the work may be completed till   

31.3.2008.  After  31.3.2008  no  booklets  shall  be  accepted.  The  decision  

dated 28.3.2008 was questioned by filing writ petitions. Said writ petition  

filed  by  M/s.  Ruchi  Printers  had  been  allowed  by  Single  Bench  vide  

common judgment and order dated 6.11.2008.  State was directed to accept  

the supply of 10.75 lakhs of Rin Pustikas from M/s. Ruchi Printers and to

Page 3

3

make payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.  

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 consider the claim in respect of the materials already supplied and to  

settle the claim if not already settled. No other relief was given.

4. 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 common order.

5. It was submitted on behalf of learned counsel appearing on behalf of  

the State that the High Court has erred in law in allowing the writ petitions  

and  dismissing  the  writ  appeal.  As  per  the  initial  order,  booklets  were  

required  to  be  supplied  by  25.2.2008.   Time  was  essence  of  contract.  

Though time was extended but it was made clear that after 31.3.2008 no  

such booklets will be accepted, later on its format had been changed for the  

subsequent year as such they were of no use to the State. The payment was  

required to be made only on account of booklets which were supplied till  

31.3.2008. Letter dated 22.5.2008 was cancelled by the State Government  

on 30.1.2009 and supply after 31.3.2008 had not been accepted as it was of  

no use due to change of format. The writ petition could not be said to be an  

appropriate  remedy  for  claiming  the  amount  in  case  of  non-statutory

Page 4

4

contract. The High Court has erred in directing the State Government to  

accept the booklets printed till 22.5.2008.

6. Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  has  

supported the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court and  

has submitted that in the writ petition filed by Ruchi Printers, order had  

been passed by Single Bench on 6.11.2008 to make payment within three  

months  as  per  the  communication  dated  22.5.2008.  Thus  there  was  no  

justification to recall  the communication dated 22.5.2008 by issuance of  

letter dated 30.1.2009. As the booklets had been printed the High Court had  

rightly directed to accept the supply. Thus no case for interference is made  

out.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion  

that the order for printing booklets was placed with printers on 16.1.2008.  

The booklets were to be supplied on time bound basis by 25.2.2008. The  

respondents were well aware that the time was the essence of the contract  

and there was requirement of these booklets on time bound basis. Though  

communication  dated  25.2.2008  approving  format  was  issued  but  the  

respondents very well knew that the time was the essence of contract and  

the printing of booklets was to be completed at the earliest. However as  

supplies  were  not  made  as  stipulated,  even  within  one  month  after

Page 5

5

25.2.2008,  another  communication  dated  28.3.2008  was  issued  by  the  

Controller  to  supply  Rin  Pustikas  before  31.3.2008.  In  case  any  work  

remains  incomplete,  the  work  order  be  treated  as  cancelled.  Thus,  in  

unequivocal terms, it was made clear that no booklets were to be received  

after 31.3.2008 and whatever booklets were ready they were to be supplied  

by  31.3.2008.  Thus,  in  our  opinion,  there  was  no  rhyme  or  reason  for  

printers to print any booklets after cancellation of order w.e.f. 31.3.2008 till  

22.5.2008.  Printing of booklets after 31.3.2008 was wholly unauthorized.  

No doubt  about  it  that  on  22.5.2008  the  Under  Secretary  had  issued  a  

communication that certain specified number of booklets may be accepted.  

However,  the  said  communication  had been  recalled  on  30.1.2009.  The  

High  Court,  in  our  opinion,  was  not  at  all  justified  in  enforcing  the  

communication dated 22.5.2008 which was palpably illegal and there was  

reason for the printers to print the booklets after 31.3.2008.  In view of  

aforesaid  fact,  the  communication  dated  22.5.2008  had  been  rightly  

cancelled on 30.1.2009 as these booklets were no more required by State  

Government due to further change of format of booklets. Even otherwise  

timely  supply  was  necessary  as  per  order  dated  16.1.2008  though  the  

communication dated 25.2.2008 was silent as to the time within which the  

supply was to be made. The printers were very well aware that booklets

Page 6

6

were required urgently and time was essence of the contract and time for  

supply  could  not  have  been  more  than  what  was  originally  stipulated.  

Sufficient  time  had been  given  to  them to  supply  the  booklets  and the  

booklets  supplied  by  them  till  31.3.2008  had  been  accepted  by  the  

appellants  and  payment  has  also  been  made.  Thus  after  the  order  for  

printing booklets stood cancelled on failure to supply within the stipulated  

period, the contract came to an end, there was no reason for the printers to  

print the booklets.  No communication has been placed on record between  

31.3.2008 and 22.5.2008 asking printers to print and supply the booklets.  

No right  could be said to  have accrued on the basis  of  palpably illegal  

communication dated 22.5.2008.  The Division Bench of the High Court in  

the circumstances of the case has erred in directing that the booklets printed  

till 22.5.2008 be accepted. Booklets printed after 31.3.2008 were without  

any work order in existence.  The communication dated 25.2.2008 did not  

confer on them a right to print books after 31.3.2008. Whatever booklets  

they had supplied till 31.3.2008 were accepted. Thus, the High Court has  

erred  in  the  facts  of  the  case  to  interfere  in  contractual  matter  and  by  

granting the relief. However, we observe that in case payment has not been  

made to the printers for booklets which were supplied till 31.3.2008, it shall  

be made forthwith.                 

Page 7

7

8. Thus, the impugned judgment and order is set aside, the appeals are  

allowed.   Parties to bear their own costs.

……..……………………….J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

New Delhi; ……………………………..J. May 5, 2016. (Arun Mishra)

Page 8

8

ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment       COURT NO.9               SECTION IVA                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).4817/2016 @ SLP(C) No.32730/2013 STATE OF M.P & ORS                                 Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS M/S RUCHI PRINTERS                                 Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 4818/2016 @ SLP(C) No.36095/2013 C.A. No. 4819/2016 @ SLP(C) No.36096/2013   Date : 05/05/2016 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s)    Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey,Adv.                                            Mr. Ashiesh Kumar,Adv.         

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Arun  Mishra  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

Leave granted. The  appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  

reportable Judgment.  Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed  

of.

      (VINOD KUMAR JHA)        (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)       COURT MASTER       COURT MASTER

  (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)