STATE OF KERALA Vs. ABOOBACKER KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 2708 of 1988 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent, who has since died during the pendency of the Writ petition.

(2.) THE appellants invited fenders for a particular work. THE writ petitioner-first respondent obtained forms at 3. 50 P. M. on 17-11-1987, that being the last date for submitting tenders. While submitting his tender, when he was filling up the column relating to rates, he scored off the word 'above' by mistake, while he intended to score off the word 'below'. THE above words were relevant in the context of the estimated rales mentioned in the tender. THE result was 'that he had quoted a rate above the estimated rate. THE writ petitioner-first respondent immediately realised the mistake and sent up a letter Ext. P10 at 4. 05 P. M. on the same day, that is 17-11-1987 seeking permission to correct the mistake or in the alternative to withdraw the offer. THEre is no dispute between the parties that the time for opening tenders %vas 4. 30 P. M. THE Superintending Engineer did not take any decision on Ext. P10. but issued ext. P2 letter dated 30-11-1987 to the Chief Engineer requesting for direction. In Ext. P3 dated 4-1-1987, the Chief Engineer asked the Superintending Engineer to take appropriate decision. Obviously the Chief Engineer did not indicate that should be done, but threw the responsibility on the Superintending engineer. THEreafter the writ petitioner moved the Government, and by Ext. P7 dated 11-2-1988 the Government turned down the request of the writ petitioner. THE tender was cancelled by Ext. P9 (a) dated 3-3-1988 by the Superintending engineer. THErefore a fresh tender had to be called for, and the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by the petitioner was withheld. THE petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition on 29-3-1988 for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P5 (a), P5 (b), P7, P9 (a) and P9 (b), and for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants-respondents to return the Earnest money Deposit made by the Writ petitioner in the sum of Rs, 50. 000/ -.

(3.) IN this appeal, the learned Government Pleader contends that the validity of paragraph 15. 6. 1. of the P. W. D. Manual was not questioned by the writ petitioner, and that if the said paragraph of the Manual is followed, a tenderer cannot withdraw his tender or suggest any modification after the tenders are deposited in the tender box. Therefore the Government is entitled to forfeiture of earnest money deposit.