Title not extracted — [1984] 1 S.C.R. 863

SMT; ASLHING @ LHINGJANQNG .A v.

. L.S. JOHN & ORS. • November 22, 1983 B [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VBNKATARAMIAH, JJ;) ·

CoiJtract- ft'heti a party writes to the opposite party that it is closing the contr"act, does the contraci_ stlbsist ? C The respondent who was a party to a subsisting contract with t~e Government for·widening of a road W-rotc a letter tO the concerned Executive Engineer st~ti~g that he was closing the said coniract. The appellant contended that the contents of the letter did riot have the effect of putting an ·end to the contract D Dismissing the appeal,

HELP: After the letter, the contract came to an· end by· breach and was no longer subsisting. Acceptance of the]etter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the breach may give rise to an actipn for damages, [.864 B-C] E

CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No: 1189 of

1982. , • ·From the Judgment and Order dated the 18th December, 1981 F of the dauhati High C.ourt in Election Petition No. 1 of 1980.

S. Rangarajan, S.K. Nandy and S. Parikh for the Appellant:

A.K. Nag for the Respondent. G The Judgme.nt of the Court was delivered by

FAZAL ALJ, J. In this election appeal "the only point for determination is whether at the .time whe.n respondent No. I. filed his nomination paper he held a subsisting contract with the GovT:rnmcnt for widening the PLP road. While it is true th~t there was such a H contract in existence prior to 30.11.1979, respondent N9. 1 wrote a ' . . ,

864 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1984) 1 s.c.R. · letter on 30.11.1979 to.the concerned Executive Engineer stating that· . A he was closing the said contract. The last date for filing nomination was 10.12.1979. It is argued that tl.ie contents of the said letter· ~~~the~~-~m~~~~~-~. going through the contents.of the letter it is absolutely clear. t~at the l" )

. contractor unila~rly put an end to the contract and informed the . Ii , .Department concerned accordingly· and also he had resigned from the . contractor's list of PWD Manlpur. Thus after this 1¢tter the con- tract came to an end by breac.h and the contract was no longer subsis· -i. ting. Mr. Rangarajan has submitted some very nice and delicate· questions for consideratlori. One of them being that until and unless the letter is accepted by the Authority the contract would contin\le c and thus the respondent would suffer from the disqualification. In our opinion having regard to the contents of the· letter it is not possible.to accept the argument of Mr. Rangarajan that the contract -~ was subsisting. · The· acceptance of the letter by. the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the breach may give dse to a cause, on action for damages .. No· other point is D •raised before us. -We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed without any order as to costs . .. H.l.. C. Appeal dismissed. ,_ .. ''