Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Article 299 of the Constitution, Section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935, Section

32 of the Government of India Act, 1919, and Section 65 of the Government of India Act,

1858 must all be considered when determining whether a complaint against the government

may be maintained.

The Supreme Court of India decided in Thawardas Pherumal v Union of India1

, that the government may only be bound by contracts that are entered into in a certain manner
and are

bound by sufficient authority. All contracts formed under state executive power must

expressly be made by the governor of state, and all contracts made in the exercise of that

power must be executed on behalf of the governor by such people and in such way as he may

order or permit, according to Article 299(1).

Purpose of article 299

For the sake of fair form, the provision of article 299 was included. They exist to protect the

government from illegal contracts. If a contract is unlawful or beyond authority, it is only

proper that the government be protected. It would be awful to believe that thousands of

government employees are daily engaging into a variety of contracts, many of which are

minor in nature, and that they are unable to contract orally or by mail in an emergency.

It's possible that the government will not be obligated by the contract in that instance, but it's

also possible that the contract will be declared void and of no consequence. It simply implies

that the concept cannot be challenged, but we assume that nothing would impede ratification,

particularly if it was for the interest of the government.

There can be no implicit contract between the government and another individual, according

to Article 299 of the Constitution. The reason for this is because allowing such a contract

would effectively render Article 299 obsolete.

Under the Indian constitution, the state's contractual responsibility is the same as an

individual's under ordinary contract law. Before 1858, the state's obligation was the same as

that of the India Company.

You might also like