STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. JYOTHI KRISHNA ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13849/92 dated 27.11.92 issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the State Bank of Hyderabad-appellant in WA No. 1507/92 to accept the lowest tender submitted by the respondent, M/s. Jyothi Krishna Engineers, Hyderabad, by accepting the terms deposit receipt (for short 'TDR'), as made in substantial compliance of condition No. 12 of the terms and conditions of the tender. Writ Appeal No. 1507/92 is filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad, and Writ Appeal No. 1553/92 is filed by M/s. Venkata Lakshmi Constructions, whose tender was second lowest, against the judgment of the learned single Judge.

(2.) The State Bank of Hyderabad (for short, 'the Bank') invited tenders for the construction of a branch building at Latur in Maharastra State. The last date of submission of tenders was 27.7.1992. The respondent and the appellant in WA No. 1553/92 submitted tenders along with others. The tenders were opened at 4 PM on 27.7.92. According to the respondent-writ petitioner, he apprehended that his tender was not accepted as he submitted TDR for a sum of Rs. 63,260/- towards earnest money deposit instead of a bank draft, as required by the tender conditions. He filed the writ petition praying for issuing a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the writ petitioner's bid is the lowest and that the work of construction of Branch office Building be awarded to him. The Bank has taken the stand that the writ petitioner did not furnish earnest money deposit by way of a demand draft as per the tender conditions, and the tender was rejected. The learned Judge, holding that the Bank could have waived the requirement of furnishing of earnest money receipt through bank draft, directed the bank to accept the tender of the writ petitioner and to award the contract in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned Judge rejected the contention of the writ petitioner attributing mala fides to the Bank officials. the appellant-Bank submitted that the tender of the respondent-writ petitioner was rightly rejected, as it was not accompanied by a demand draft as per the conditions of tender requiring the deposit of Rs. 63,260/- in the form of a bank draft drawn in favour of the Chief Manager (Services Branch) State Bank of Hyderabad. He contended that the TDR accompanying the tender of the respondent, cannot be equated to a demand draft, as it is not transferable and is repayable only after 46 days after the date of issue. The TDR reads as if the amount of Rs. 63,260/- was received from the Chief Manager of the Bank, whereas no such payment was made by the Chief Manager. The TDR is in the account of the writ petitioner and is not payable to the Bank. The learned Counsel further submitted that the earnest money bears no interest, whereas the TDR is repayable with interest at 12% p.a. after 46 days. Under Clause 10 of the tender conditions, all tenders in which any of the prescribed conditions are not fulfilled, or are incomplete in any respect, are liable to be rejected and the tender of the respondent was rightly rejected for non-compliance of the essential condition of the tender.

(3.) Sri E. Manohar, appearing for the appellant in WA 1553/92, whose tender was the second lowest, submitted that no Mandamus can be issued to the Bank to waive tender conditions, that the learned Judge was in error in directing the Bank to accept the TDR and also to accept the tender of the respondent.