Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 1079
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Y.Konda Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-21-96
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Principles of natural justice – Claim of compensation – Consideration - Factual matrix third respondent herein invited tenders from eligible contractors with respect to project from elevation to elevation meters including road over bridge over spillway regulator - Petitioner submitted his tender within time prescribed along with six other contractors - Tenders were opened and tender submitted by petitioner is lowest as petitioner s offer - Petitioner was requested by third respondent to come for negotiations and during negotiations petitioner reduced his offer to Rupees - Offer made by petitioner would be at Plus excess over estimated value – Held, In affidavit filed in support of writ petition in ground No. F it is alleged that cancellation was effected by Chief Engineer at instance of Government particularly Chief Minister purely due to political reasons - Chief Minister is not made a party to this writ petition - Allegation that decision is taken at instance of Chief Minister by Chief Engineer is totally baseless - Decision was taken by Government itself at various levels and ultimately matter was reserved for consideration by Chief Minister himself - It is thus clear that allegations are levelled by petitioner without ascertaining true and correct facts - It is settled law that burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on person who alleges it - Facts alleged by petitioner are totally vague and indefinite and it is not possible to draw any adverse inference under facts and circumstances of case – Petition dismissed
( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in letter No. T/o/db/d9/ 1325, Dt. 16-7-1996 on the file of the third respondent herein cancelling the tender under instructions from the Chief Engineer, Medium Irrigation. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to call for the records contained in the said proceedings dt. 16-7-1996. The petitioners also prays for a direction to the respondents to proceed with the acceptance of the tender communicated to the petitioner in letter No. FM-10. NABARD. Spillway/db/d9/694-M dated 30-3-1996.
( 2 ) THE factual matrix: the third respondent herein invited tenders on 5-1-1996 from the eligible contractors with respect to Maddileru project from elevation 363 to elevation 379 metres including road, overbridge, over spillway regulator. The petitioner submitted his tender within the time prescribed along with the six other contractors. The tenders were opened on 2-2-1996 and the tender submitted by the petitioner is the lowest, as the petitioner s offer was Rs. S,63,14,500. 00. The petitioner was requested by the third respondent to come for negotiations and during the negotiations the petitioner reduced his offer from 8,63,14,500/- to Rupees 8,49,91,350/ -. In the final negotiations on 19-2-1996 the petitioner offered a further reduction of Rupees 5. 86 lakhs which works out to 1% over and above the rates reduced by the petitioner before the third respondent. The second respondent herein by his letter dt.-26-2-1996 recommended the bid of the petitioner at Rs. 8,49,91,350. 00 for acceptance. All the offers received with respect to Maddilem project were placed before the Commissariat of Tenders (for short Commissionerate) on 25-3-1996. The Commissariat after having considered various aspects of the matter accepted the offer made by the petitioner for a value of Rs. 8,49,91,350. 00 (Rupees eight crore forty nine lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred and fifty only ). The offer made by the petitioner would be at Plus 55. 07% excess over the estimated value.
( 3 ) THE third respondent herein through letter dated 30-3-1996 informed the petitioner about the acceptance of his tender by the Commissariat of lenders and requested the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rupees 4,75,000/- towards the balance of Earnest Money Deposit and the same was deposited by the petitioner through his letter dt. 3-4-1996. However, the agreement cannot be entered into by the third, respondent herein with the petitioner in spite of the repealed requests made by the petitioner. The third respondent herein by his proceedings dt. 1-6-1996 informed the petitioner that the orders of the Government were awaited in the matter for concluding the contract.
( 4 ) IT is stated that the matter was unnecessarily kept pending with the ulterior motive and under political pressure. The respondents were bound to enter into the contract as the offer made by the petitioner v/as already accepted and entering into the contract was only a formality. It is stated that the matter was kept pending in view of the statement alleged to have been made by the Chief Minister at a public meeting at Uruvakonda that the tenders received for Maddileru project would be cancelled.
( 5 ) THE third respondent herein through the impugned letter dt. 16-7-1996 informed the petitioner that the tender for the work in question was cancelled as per the instructions received from the Chief Engineer, Medium Irrigation, Hyderabad. The petitioner was requested to take return the Earnest Money Deposit and the balance Earnest money deposit paid by the petitioner. This order is under challenge.
( 6 ) IT is submitted by the petitioner that the third respondent by proceedings dt. 30-3-1996 communicated the acceptance of his offer and therefore, the same would amount to a concluded contract and signing of a contract/ agreement is only a formality. The cancellation of the tender is therefore illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also stated tha
