KENNEDY ALEMAO Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. The short question involved in this case is whether the refusal by the Government of Goa to extend the period of contract after the expiry of the term of contract is legal. The relevant clause in the Agreement is extracted below :-

(2.) THE short facts for the purpose of deciding the case are that by Tender Notice dated 1st February, 1996, the respondent No. 1 Executive Engineer W. D. XIV (NH), P. W. D. , Government of Goa, invited sealed tenders for the right to collect toll fee of Zuari Bridge on N. H. 17 for a period of one year. The petitioner submitted his tender with an offer of Rs. 94,00,555/ -. He also deposited earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as required by the tender conditions. However, the petitioners tender was accepted only for the period of three months from 17th May, 1996 to 17th August, 1996, at an amount of Rs. 23,50,139/ -. Prorata and he was called upon to deposit a security amount of Rs. 7,83,330/ -. His offer was accepted with the above conditions imposed by the letter of respondent No. 1 dated 17th May, 1996. It may be noted that the conditions imposed by this letter of 17th May, 1996, were not in the tender conditions. The tender conditions as we pointed out earlier, spelled that the tender was for one year, but the first respondent seems to have deviated from the tender conditions and wanted to restrict the contract for three months and this fact has been informed to the petitioner by the aforesaid letter of 17th May, 1996. The petitioner however, without any demur accepted these conditions and executed the Agreement with these conditions and we have already extracted the relevant clause in the Agreement executed between the petitioner and the Government of Goa.

(3.) BY letter dated 17th June, 1996, the petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to extend the period of contract for a full year after the expiry of three months period. By letter dated 13th August, 1996, however, the first respondent has extended the period of contract for a further period of three months from 17th August, 1996 and called upon the petitioner to deposit another amount of Rs. 22,32,500/ -. Accordingly, the contract period was extended upto 17th November, 1996. By letter dated 1st October, 1996, the petitioner again wrote to the first respondent requesting him to extend the period of contract beyond 17th November, 1996. The first respondent did not extend the period of the contract beyond 17th November, 1996. This gave rise to the filing of this writ petition by the petitioner.