Statutory prohibition frustrates transport contract through wildlife sanctuary, making the bargain unenforceable and supporting refund.

A contract to lift and transport iron ore fines through Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary was described as unenforceable because permission for transport had been refused and the area had been declared a Tiger Reserve to be kept inviolate for tiger conservation. On that basis, the contractual object was said to be prohibited by section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, making performance unlawful and frustrating the bargain. The note further states that, once the object of the agreement was forbidden by law, a plea that only the buyer was in breach could not succeed, and restitution by refund was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contract for lifting and transporting iron ore fines through the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary was unenforceable and frustrated in view of the statutory prohibition under section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and whether the High Court was in directing refund of the amount paid.

Analysis: The permission required for transportation through the sanctuary had been refused, and the sanctuary had been declared a Tiger Reserve required to be maintained as inviolate for tiger population. In that backdrop, the contractual object could not be lawfully ated. The contract was therefore hit by the statutory prohibition and became incapable of enforcement. Once the object of the bargain was forbidden by law, the plea that the buyer alone was in breach could not prevail, and the High Court's restitutionary approach was justified.

Conclusion: The contract was unlawful and unenforceable, and the High Court correctly directed refund of the amount. The appeal was liable to be dismissed.

---