A contract with a public servant which cast upon him duties which may conflict with the duties he owes to the public is void. [The Sitarampur Coal Co. v. Colley, 13 CWN 59]. Contracts which have for their object the influencing of appointments to public officers and the restricting of the discretion vested in the public officers in the selection of persons to be appointed are illegal and void. [Ledu v. Hiralal, 43 Cal 115; see also Maharaja Manindra v. Aswini ,32 CLJ 168; Himandas v. Chellaram, 5 SLR 267; Puttulal v. Raj Narain, 1931 All 428].
An agreement to pay money to a public servant to induce him to retire to make way for the appointment of the promisor [Saminatha v. Muthusami, 30 Mad 530], or to recommend him to an office [Karuppiah v. Ponnuchami, 1933 Mad 768], cannot be enforced. So money lent to bribe a public officer cannot be recovered back if the creditor knew the purpose. [Firm of Attar v. Haku, 24 IC 692].
Payment made to obtain the release of the plaintiff’s husband who was in jail could not be recovered [Protima v. Dukhina, 18 WR 450], nor would a civil suit lie to recover money paid to a Civil Court ameen to induce him to make a favourable report. [Gogan Chunder v. Janokee, 20 WR 235]. But when a large sum of money is paid to various persons to induce them to use their influence with the government in connection with private or quasi political concerns, the transaction cannot be regarded as immoral or contrary to public policy. [Shib Saran v. Kesho Prasad, 3 Pat LW 302]. [Section 33, Companies Act, 1956].