The last date for obtaining tender schedules should be extended to the next working day if the last date originally fixed becomes a holiday subsequently, on the general principles underlying Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.

This writ petition seeks to quash the tender notification No. 5 of 1994 dated 7-5-1994 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to call for fresh tenders and award the work in question to the lowest bidder.

2. The material allegations in the supporting affidavit by the petitioner are as follows:- He is a registered contractor under class I category with the National Highways Department throughout the State. The 2nd respondent floated the tender in the above referred to notification for purposes of two works under the National Highways Circle, Tirunelveli and Madurai-2 respectively. As per the said notification tender documents have to be received from the 1st respondent from 13-6-1994 to 21-6-1994, on paying a sum of Rs.3, 000/- towards tender cost and Rs.173/- towards sales tax in the treasury account. The petitioner intended to participate in the said tender pertaining to Item No. 1 of the tender notification and paid the tender cost in the treasury account on 16-6-1994 and approached the 1st respondent on 16-6-1994 itself for receiving the tender schedules. However, the 1st respondent refused to issue the tender schedules and stated that the contractor to whom the work has to be awarded has been selected by the higher authorities and, therefore, tender schedules will not be issued to other contractors. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has sent application with the remittance copy of the challan to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on seeing the petitioner's address in the cover, refused to receive the cover and returned the same on 20-6-1994. The last date for receiving the tender schedules, viz., 21-6-1994 was a holiday, on account of Moharam. Since the tender schedules were not received till 22-6-1994, the petitioner once again approached the 1st respondent for receiving them on 22-6-1994. But, the 1st respondent once again refused to issue tender schedules and stated that the last date for receiving the tender schedules was pre-poned to 20-6-1994. Though the tender schedules have been opened on 23-6-1994, the same are yet to be confirmed. By the arbitrary and illegal act of the respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of participating in the above tender.

3. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent, the material allegations are as follows:- The statement of the petitioner that he approached the lst respondent on 16-6-1994 and the lst respondent refused to issue tender schedules, is not correct. The further statement of the petitioner about the refusal to issue tender schedules to him is also beyond truth. The Statement of the petitioner that on seeing his address in the cover, the Ist respondent refused to receive the same, is not correct. Since there are two different National Highways Divisional Engineer's office in Palayamkottai, that is, one execution division and another one, planning division, 'Tapal' said to have been sent by the petitioner might have been returned for want of sufficient address. In the abovesaid notification, the Superintending Engineer (NH) Tirunelveli has prescribed the dates for the sale of tender schedules during working hours on all working days between 13-6-1994 to 21-6-1994. Subsequently due to the declaration of public holiday on 21-6-1994 by the Government and due to declaration of 22-6-1994 also as a local holiday for Tirunelveli and Palayamkottai Taluk by the Collector of Tirunelveli in view of the car festival, tender schedules were issued up to 20-6-1994, being the last working day. The statement of the petitioner that he again approached the 1st respondent, who again refused to issue the tender schedules, is false. Since 22-6-1994 was declared as a local holiday, the petitioner could not have met the 1st respondent on that date.

4. No doubt, a reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner. But, there is no necessity to traverse the same. C.M.P. No. 17415 of 1994 was filed by one R.C. Anantharaj for