In Bhikraj Jaipuria v.

Union of India[vii], certain contracts were
entered into between the Government and the plaintiff-firm. No
specific authority had been conferred on the Divisional
Superintendent, East India Railway to enter into such contracts. In
pursuance of the contracts, the firm tendered a largequantity of
food grains and the same was accepted by the Railway
Administration. But after some time, the Railway Administration
refused to take delivery of goods. It was contended that the contract
was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 175(3) of the
Government of India Act, 1935 and, therefore, it was not valid and
not binding on the Government.
The Supreme Court, after appreciating the evidence – oral as well as
documentary – held that the Divisional Superintendent acting under
the authority granted to him could enter into the contracts. The
Court rightly held that it was not necessary that such authority
could be given ‘only by rules expressly framed or by formal
notifications issued in that behalf.’
In State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar[viii], the plaintiff entered
into a contract with the Government of Bihar for construction of an
aerodrome and other works. After some work, a dispute arose with
regard to payment of certain bills. It was ultimately agreed to refer
the matter for arbitration. The said agreement was expressed to
have been made in the name of the Governor and was signed by the
Executive Engineer. After the award was made, the Government
contended in civil court that the Executive Engineer was not a
person authorised to enter into contract under the notification
issued by the Government, and therefore, the agreement was void.
On a consideration of the correspondence produced in the case, the
Supreme Court held that the Executive Engineer had been ‘specially
authorised’ by the Governor to execute the agreement for reference
to arbitration.
n Karamshi Jethabhai v. State of Bombay[x], the plaintiff was in.
possession of a cane farm. An agreement was entered into between
the plaintiff and the Government for supply of canal water to the
land of the former. No formal contract was entered into in the name
of the Governor but two letters were written by the Superintending
Engineer. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was not in
accordance with the provisions of Section 175(3) of the Government
of India Act, 1935 and, consequently, it was void.
Similarly in D.G. Factory v. State of Rajasthan[xi], a contract was
entered intoby a contractor and the Government. The agreement
was signed by the Inspector General of Police, in his official status
without stating that the agreement was executed ‘on behalf of the
Governor’. In a suit for damages filed by the contractor for breach of
contract, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 299(l)
were not complied with and the contract was not enforceable.
In State of Punjab v. Om Prakash[xii], the Executive Engineer, PWD,
who was authorised under the PWD Manual to enter into a contract
accepted the tender of the contractor for construction of a bridge.

The Supreme Court held that there was no valid contract. .The letter of acceptance was signed by the Executive Engineer but was not expressed in the name ofGovernor.