RAM GAJADHAR NISHAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also considered the terms and conditions embodied in the tender Form in accordance with which tenders were invited from the parties to give their offers for lease of the right of the collection of the toll of ferry at Rajapur in District Banda. It also appears from the tender notice that the tenders had to be submitted by 25/08/1987 and those tenders were to be opened at 3.30 p. m. on the said date by the Superintendent of Works DCU PWD Karwi or by his authorised representative at his office of Karwi. The tender consists of two parts. Part Iincludes actual tender i. e. tender form and bill of quantity. It will indicate tender amount offered by the contractor (tenderer). This will be kept in a sealed envelope by the tenderer bearing his name and address indicating that it is Part I. Part II comprises among others the following conditions:

(2.) We have considered these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and we have also considered the terms and conditions of the tender notice. It is quite clear that the tender form that was submitted by the appellant did not fulfil all the requirements of the tender notice, that is, the solvency certificate which was filed was more than three months old and the new solvency certificate duly granted by the collector was not filed within the time specified in the tender notice, that is, on 25/08/1987. But it was filed much later on 2/09/1987. The Commissioner has already considered the validity of the tender filed by the appellant in accordance with the direction made by the High court pursuant to the order made in Writ Petition "no. 206 of 1987 and the Commissioner by his order dated 10/05/1988 has held that the appellant did not comply with this mandatory condition, namely, filing of solvency certificate within the last date of submission of the tender as well as character certificate and so the Commissioner did not open the tender form submitted by the appellant on this ground. We do not want to interfere with this order in an application under Article 136 of the constitution of India. Furthermore, learned counsel, Mr Jain, for respondent 4 states before us that his client is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 2,41,000. 00 per annum for leasing out this particular ferry. The appellant will file an undertaking through his counsel, Mr P. K. Jain within two weeks from today to this effect. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs in the special facts and circumstances of the case.