Andrews v. Board of Directors Modesto Irrigation District

VAN DYKE, J. Herein plaintiff, as a taxpayer, brought action against the board of directors and the treasurer of Modesto Irrigation District, complaining that the defendants had purchased and paid for three large electrical transformers without advertising for bids. A general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and from the judgment entered thereafter this appeal has been taken.

In his complaint, appellant, who is acting in pro. per., asks that the trial court “invoke on the defendants [respondents here] the penalty prescribed by Law.” He 'refers to section 21196 of the Water Code, which provides that for any wilful violation of express duty the officers of the district are subject to removal from office.

Appellant contends that the district through its officials were required by law to call for bids before they might purchase the equipment alleged to have been purchased by them, and that their purchasing the same without such call was a violation of law. Appellant cites in support of his contention the following sections of the Water Code dealing with irrigation districts. Section 22300 reads as follows: “As used in this article ‘works’ is limited to any works to be paid for with the proceeds of the sale of bonds or a limited assessment.” Section 22301 reads: ‘ ‘ Contracts for the construction of any works shall be made pursuant to the provisions of this article.” The sections following those quoted direct that the board of directors of the district give notice, by publication, calling for bids for the construction of “works” or of any portion thereof; and provide for the contents of such notice and various other matters, including the awarding of contracts to the lowest bidders. Section 22306 provides that in case of emergency or urgent necessity for any works, the board by unanimous vote of those present may award contracts without advertising for bids, if the cost of the works does not exceed $500 and an additional amount equal to five cents for each acre of land in the district.

We think it clear that, in the absence of allegations that the equipment alleged to have been purchased without a bid comes within the definition of the word “works” as defined in the sections referred to, the pleading fails to state a cause of action. We are assuming, without deciding, that some right of action would rest in appellant, as plaintiff, if the law concerning bidding had been violated; and we do this because the respondents have requested that our decision be based upon the proposition advanced by them, contrary to the claims [782]