Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Bihar State Housing Board against the judgment of the Patna High Court. The dispute arose from an advertisement issued by the Board on May 10, 2008, inviting applications for allotment of a plot for a health center. The respondent, Radha Ballabh Health Care and Research Institute (P) Ltd., was the sole applicant. The Board did not allot the plot, leading to litigation. The High Court initially directed the Board to consider the respondent's application and later, in a subsequent writ petition, quashed the Board's decision to allot alternative plots via the Swiss Challenge Method and directed allotment on the same terms as the advertisement with proportionate cost reduction. The Board modified the order to include updated rates as per the advertisement. The Board then demanded Rs.13,09,95,041/- as updated price, which the respondent disputed. The Board revised the price to Rs.10,58,91,736/-, which the respondent accepted under protest and paid the demanded amounts. A formal allotment letter was issued on December 11, 2014, and an agreement was executed on March 12, 2015. Despite this, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the price. The Single Bench allowed the writ petition, quashing the price and directing recalculation. The Division Bench dismissed the Board's appeal. The Supreme Court held that after the respondent accepted the revised price and entered into a concluded contract, it could not challenge the price in writ proceedings. The Court emphasized that the respondent had accepted the terms under protest but still went ahead with the contract, thus approbating and reprobating. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, holding that the contract was concluded and the price was binding.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Concluded Contract - Acceptance of Terms - Once a party accepts the revised price and enters into an agreement, it cannot later challenge the price in writ proceedings - The respondent accepted the revised price under protest and paid the amounts demanded, leading to a concluded contract - Held that the writ court erred in reopening the settled contractual terms (Paras 12-15). B) Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Disputes - The High Court ought not to have interfered with the price fixed by the Board after the respondent had accepted the terms and a contract was concluded - The dispute was essentially contractual and the writ remedy was not appropriate after acceptance (Paras 13-15). C) Estoppel - Approbate and Reprobate - A party cannot approbate and reprobate - Having accepted the allotment and paid the price, the respondent could not turn around and challenge the price - Held that the respondent is estopped from challenging the price (Paras 12-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, after accepting the revised price and entering into a concluded contract, could challenge the allotment price in a writ petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Single Bench and Division Bench, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Court held that the contract was concluded and the respondent could not challenge the price after acceptance.
Law Points
- Contract concluded upon acceptance of revised price
- Writ court cannot reopen settled contractual terms
- Doctrine of approbate and reprobate
- Estoppel by conduct
