Invalid provincial contracts do not bar restitution where government accepts and benefits from lawful work under section 70.

Contracts made on behalf of the Province without compliance with the mandatory execution requirements were invalid and could not bind the Government. Despite that invalidity, compensation remained payable where the claimant lawfully did work, did not intend it to be gratuitous, and the Government accepted and enjoyed the benefit. Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act was treated as operating independently of valid contractual liability, and its conditions were satisfied on the facts. The claim was therefore maintainable, and the Government could not defeat recovery by relying on the absence of a valid contract.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether contracts made on behalf of the Province without compliance with the mandatory requirements governing execution were invalid. (ii) Whether, despite the absence of a valid contract, compensation was payable under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act for work lawfully done, not intended to be gratuitous, and enjoyed by the Government.

Issue (i): Whether contracts made on behalf of the Province without compliance with the mandatory requirements governing execution were invalid.

Analysis: The statutory requirement governing provincial contracts was held to be mandatory and intended to protect the State from unauthorised liabilities. A contract not expressed and executed in the manner required by law could not bind the Government. The comparison drawn with constitutional contract-making provisions did not alter the conclusion, because the earlier contract remained one made in contravention of a mandatory rule.

Conclusion: The contracts were invalid and not binding on the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, despite the absence of a valid contract, compensation was payable under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act for work lawfully done, not intended to be gratuitous, and enjoyed by the Government.

Analysis: Section 70 was treated as operating in a field distinct from valid contractual liability. Its requirements were identified as threefold: lawful doing or delivery, absence of gratuitous intent, and enjoyment of the benefit by the other party. The Court held that acceptance and use of the work created the basis of liability, and that such a claim did not validate the ineffective contract or defeat the statutory policy governing formal contracts. The provision was also held applicable to the State where the factual conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: Compensation under section 70 was payable and the respondent's claim was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Government could not rely on the invalidity of the contract to defeat a claim for compensation for work it had accepted and used.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person lawfully does work for another, without gratuitous intent, and the other voluntarily accepts and enjoys the benefit, section 70 imposes a liability to compensate even though no valid contract exists.

---