STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusMIS. RUCHI PRINTERS

                             [2016) 3 S.C.R. 538


A                STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
                               v.
                          MIS. RUCHI PRINTERS
                       (Civil Appeal No. 48 I 7 of20 I 6)
B                               MAY05,2016
           [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
           Contractual dispute - Inte1ference with - Print order placed
    by State for printing booklets - Booklets to be supplied by pri11ter
    on time bound basis - Non-co111pletio11 of work withi11 the time li111it
c   - Extension of time and stated that 110 books would be accepted
    after the extended time - Challenged to, by the printer - High Court
    directing to the State to accept the supply of booklets from the printer
    and make pay111ent accordingly - Writ appeal by State - Dis111issal
    of - On appeal, held: Time was the essence of contract and the
    printing of booklets was to be completed at the earliest - In case
D   any work remains incomplete, the work order was ro be treated as
    cancelled - It was made clear that no booklets were to be received
    after the extended ti111e - Thus, there was no reason for printers to
    print any booklets after cancellation of order and printing thereafte1;
    was wholly unauthorized - Thus, lifter the order for printing booklets
E   stood cancelled on failure to supply ll'ithin the stipulated period,
    the contract ca111e to an end, there was no reason for the printers to
    print the booklets - The co111111u11ication asking the printer to print
    and supply the booklets, did not confer on them a right to print
    books ajier the extended date - Thus, the High Court erred in the
    facts of the case to inte1fere in contractual matter and by granting
F   the relief - Payment to be made to the printers for booklets supplied
    till the extended date.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4817
    of20l6.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2012 of the High Court
G   of Madhya Pradesh principal scat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1020
    of2009.
                                    WITH
          C. A. Nos. 4818 and 4819 of2016.
H         C. D. Singh, Adv. for the Appellants.
                                   538
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MIS. RUCH!                              539
                     PRINTERS

     G. S. Ahluwalia, Dinesh C. Pandey, Ms. Jyoti Pandey, Tushar              A
Sharma, Palash S., Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by
      ARUN MISiffiA, J. I. 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         B
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. Fm1her direction has been issued to
make payment to the printers as per the terms and conditions of the            c
order dated 16.1.2008 read with order dated 25.2.2008.
       3. Facts in short referred to from SLP [CJ No.3273012013 -
State ofM.P. & Ors. v. Mis. Ruchi Printers indicate that the State Printing
& Writing Articles Depa11ment of Madhya Pradesh through its Controller,
invited quotations vide letter dated 2.1.2008 for printing Bhu-Adhikar         D
and Rin Pustikas. On 16.1.2008 printing order was placed with Mis.
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
                                                                               E
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 Mis. Ruchi Printers had been allowed    F
by Single Bench vi de common judgment and order dated 6.11.2008. State
was directed to accept the supply of I 0.75 lakhs of Rin Pustikas from
Mis. Ruchi Printers and to make payment in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the contract. In another W.P. No. I 031912008 decided
by same order, the single Bench asked the petitioner to approach the
                                                                               G
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.                                            H
540            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A            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
B
      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
c     format. The writ petition could not be said to be an appropriate remedy
      for claiming the amount in case of non-statutory contract. The High
      Court has erred in directing the State Government to accept the booklets
      printed ti 1122 .5 .2008.
             6. Learned counsel appearing 011 behalf of the respondents has
D     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
E     High Cour1 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
F     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 we! I 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
G
      within one month after 25.2.2008, another communication dated 28.3.2008
      was issued by the Controller to supply Rin Pustik11s 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
H     they were to be supplied by 31.3.2008. Thus, in our opinion, there was
  I
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. M/S. RUCH!                              541
               PRINTERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

no rhyme or reason for printers to print any booklets after cancellation         A
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
                                                                                 B
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            c
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 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
                                                                                 D
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                    E
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 Divisioi1 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
                                                                                 F
without any work order in existence. The communication dated
25 .2.2008 did not confer on them a right to print books after 3 1.3 .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                G
supplied till 31.3.2008, it shall be made fo11hwith.
       8. Thus, the impugned judgment and order is set aside, the appeals
are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeals allowed.
                                                                                 H