KSLU Solved Question Papers
Constitutional Law II
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2020 Nov Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Constitutional Law II 2020 Nov Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2020 Nov examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2020 Nov examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2020 Nov examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1When is the contract entered by the Government binding on it ? Explain.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the Government as a contracting party and the background in section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935; the power to contract (article 298 and its provisos); the three formal requirements of article 299(1) (Karam Chand Thapar) and the mandatory rule (Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria, Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani confined); writing by letters (A.L. Rallia Ram); the effect of non-compliance: no implied contract, no ratification (K.P. Chowdhary, Mulamchand); compensation in quasi-contract (section 70, B.K. Mondal); personal immunity (article 299(2)); liability on a valid contract and suits (article 300); promissory estoppel (Motilal Padampat); fairness in awarding contracts and its limits (Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Tata Cellular); a table; a conclusion.
The Government as a contracting party
The modern State buys goods, builds roads and dams, leases land, sells forest produce and runs businesses. All this needs contracts. The law must answer two questions. When does a contract bind the Government? And what happens when officers make promises the Government never properly authorised? The Constitution answers both in articles 298 and 299, which carry forward section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
The power to contract: article 298
The executive power of the Union and of each State extends to carrying on any trade or business. It covers acquiring, holding and disposing of property. It also extends to "the making of contracts for any purpose". There are two provisos. Where the Union trades in a field outside Parliament's legislative competence, it is subject to State legislation in that State. Where a State trades in a field outside its own competence, it is subject to Union legislation. So the power is wide, but each government remains subject to the other's laws in the other's field.
The three formal requirements: article 299(1)
Article 299(1) applies to all contracts made "in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State". In State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar, [1962] 1 SCR 827, the Court read the same words in section 175(3) as laying down three conditions.
- Expressed to be made by the President or the Governor. The contract must say on its face that it is made by the President (for the Union) or the Governor (for a State). A contract in an officer's own name does not satisfy this.
- Executed in writing. An oral contract cannot bind the Government.
- Executed by an authorised person, in the authorised manner. The person who signs must be one whom the President or Governor has directed or authorised, and must sign in the manner directed. No particular mode of giving authority is required. A specific authority given for a single contract is enough.
The requirements are mandatory
In Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, [1962] 2 SCR 880, the Court held that these conditions are mandatory. The purpose is to protect the public from liability on unauthorised contracts made by officers. Since the provision serves the public interest, the word "shall" is obligatory.
An earlier decision had taken a softer line. In Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram, [1954] SCR 817, an election case, the Court had taken a less strict view of a contract that did not follow section 175(3). But B.K. Mondal (below) confined that decision to its own facts under the election law. The general rule is that non-compliance is fatal.
Writing need not be one formal document
In Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, [1964] 3 SCR 164, the Court held that no single formal deed is required. Where an offer and its acceptance appear in letters, and all the requirements are clear from that correspondence, the contract is valid. This keeps the rule practical for everyday Government purchasing.
The effect of non-compliance
No implied contract. In K.P. Chowdhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 203, the highest bidder at a forest auction signed the bid sheet. He then withdrew before the authorised officer accepted and signed the contract. The State re-auctioned the forest at a loss. It tried to recover the difference from him as arrears of land revenue, on the basis of an implied contract. The Court refused. If implied contracts were allowed, article 299(1) "would in effect" become useless. A contract that does not fully comply is no contract at all, and neither side can enforce it.
No ratification, no estoppel. In Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 1218, the Court held such a contract void. The Government cannot ratify it later, and estoppel cannot be used to cure it, because that would defeat a provision made in the public interest.
Compensation in quasi-contract: section 70
A contract may be void, yet the Government may have taken and used what the other party supplied. Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act then requires it to pay compensation, if:
- the claimant lawfully did something or delivered something;
- he did not mean to do so gratuitously; and
- the Government enjoyed the benefit.
In State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779, a contractor built a road, sheds and other structures for the Civil Supplies Department. He did so at the request of local officers who had no authority to contract. The Court held the contracts invalid under section 175(3). But the State had accepted and used the work, so it had to pay under section 70. The State is bound by that section "like ordinary citizens". The liability is not contractual but rests on restitution, as Mulamchand later explained.
Personal immunity: article 299(2)
Neither the President nor a Governor is personally liable on any contract made or executed for the purposes of the Constitution. Nor is any officer who makes or executes such a contract on their behalf. This lets officers sign freely in the Government's name, while the Government itself carries the liability.
Liability on a valid contract
Once a contract complies with article 299(1), the Government is liable on it like a private party. Unlike the law of torts, there is no defence of sovereign function in contract. Under article 300, the Union is sued as the "Union of India" and a State by its own name. Damages, specific performance where allowed, and arbitration are all available.
Promissory estoppel
Sometimes the Government makes a clear promise outside any formal contract. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 409, the State announced a three-year sales tax exemption for new industries. A company set up a vanaspati factory relying on it, and the State then refused the exemption. The Court held that promissory estoppel applies against the Government. Where it makes a clear promise, intending it to be acted on, and the promisee acts on it to his detriment, the Government is bound. A mere change of policy or financial need is no excuse. But estoppel cannot compel the Government to act against a statute.
Fairness in awarding contracts
The State is not an ordinary private contractor. Article 14 governs how it chooses its contracting party.
In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, the Authority invited tenders for a restaurant at Bombay airport only from registered second class hoteliers with five years' experience. It then accepted a tender from a party that did not meet those conditions. The Court held that a public body must keep to the standards it publishes. Departing from them arbitrarily excludes others who might have tendered.
In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, unsuccessful bidders challenged the award of cellular telephone licences. The Court upheld the award and set the limits of review. The Court does not sit in appeal over the decision. It examines only the decision-making process, for illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The Government must have freedom of contract, subject to fair play.
| Question | Answer | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| What makes a contract binding? | Made in the name of the President or Governor, in writing, by an authorised person | Article 299(1), Karam Chand Thapar |
| Are the conditions mandatory? | Yes | Bikhraj Jaipuria, B.K. Mondal |
| Is a formal deed needed? | No, letters can suffice | A.L. Rallia Ram |
| Question | Answer | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Implied contract or ratification? | Neither is allowed | K.P. Chowdhary, Mulamchand |
| Remedy under a void contract | Compensation under section 70 | B.K. Mondal |
| Personal liability of officers | None | Article 299(2) |
| Promises outside contract | Promissory estoppel | Motilal Padampat |
| Choosing the contractor | Must be fair and non-arbitrary | Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Tata Cellular |
Conclusion. The Government is fully liable on a contract that follows article 299(1). The contract must be made in the name of the President or Governor, in writing and by an authorised person. These conditions are mandatory, and a defective contract can neither be implied nor ratified, as K.P. Chowdhary and Mulamchand hold. Fairness is still secured in three ways. Section 70 makes the Government pay for benefits it accepts, as in B.K. Mondal. Promissory estoppel binds it to clear promises, as in Motilal Padampat. And article 14 requires fair dealing in awarding contracts. The law thus protects public money from unauthorised promises without letting the State act unjustly.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.