C JAYASREE Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the orderspassed in W.P.No. 20552 of 1993 dated29-3-1994. The facts of the case are that the respondent-Corporation, who is the owner and possessor of the Commercial Complex situate at Kummarguda, Secunderabad, proposed to sell the said commercial complex as it could not complete the project and in that connection issued wide publicity in the newspapers on three occasions and also wrote letters to various builders and Associations in all the States. In response to the third advertisement and also the letters written by the respondent, nine persons submitted applications for purchase of the tender schedules but only six persons took the tender schedules. However, when the tenders were opened, the appellant-petitioner was only the person who filed the tender quoting the price of Rs. 2.91 crores. Thereupon, the respondent-Corporation sought for confirmation from the appellant-petitioner about her willingness to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2.91 crores within sixty days from the date of final acceptance of the tender by the Corporation, in response to which the appellant-petitioner sought two weeks time for giving reply and thereafter wrote a letter dated 14-8-1992 to the respondent-Corporation agreeing to pay the entire amount of Rs. 2.91 crores after deducting the earnest money deposit within sixty days from the date of receiving final acceptance of the tender. When there was no reply from the respondent-Corporation and it is found on enquiries that the respondent is trying to dispose of the property to the Government of India without finalising the tender in herfavour, the appellant-petitioner filed writ petition before this Court forissue of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trying to sell the property in question to third parties without finalising the tender filed by her as illegal and for a consequential direction to accept the tender filed by her. The respondent-Corporation in its counter stated that the appellant-petitioner failed to comply with item 14 of the terms and conditions by paying the entirebid amount within sixty days; being the lone tenderer no vested right was accrued to the petitioner for accepting her tender by the respondents; and thatthe Government of Andhra Pradesh after careful examination of the circumstances directed the respondent- Corporation, by exercising the powers under Section 148 ofthe Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, to cancel the sole tender and call for fresh tenders fixing the upset price at Rs. 4.19 crores as there was no promise to finalise the lone tender. It is further stated that the respondent rejected the offer made the the appellant-petitioner and communicated the same to her by letter dated 15-2-1994. The leaned Single Judge dismissed the writpetition observing that the respondent-Corporation merely sought confirmation from the petitioner as to whether she is agreeable to pay the bid amount within sixty days and no promise is made for accepting the tender of the petitioner and hence the instruction issued by the State Government to the Corporation for cancellation of the tender of the petitioner and the method adopted by the respondent to sell the property to Government of India are perfectly justified.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant being the lone tender and also willing do deposit the entire amount, the respondent-Corporation ought nottohave rejected the tender ofthe appellant andpurported to sell the property in question in favour of the fourth respondent for a higher bid. It is further contended that the tender of the appellant, which was called for in pursuance of the G.O Rt. No. 234 dated 5-2-1992 and which is more than the upset price, must be deemed tohave been accepted on its mere opening and thereby the respondent - Corporation was obliged to sell the property to the petitioner alone and hence the purported sale in favour of the third-parties is illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice. The learned Standing Counsel for Central Government on the other hand contended that the respondent-Corporation merely made an offer and even if it is presumed that the tender was deemed to have been accepted, the petitioner-appellant failed to deposit the entire amount within the stipulated time but sought further time which was not accepted and hence there is no acceptance of the tender. It is further stated that the Government after careful examination of the circumstances and exercising the power under Section 148 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act directed the respondent-Corporation to cancel the sole tender and call for fresh tenders fixing the upset price at Rs. 4.19 crores, as there was nopromise to finalise the lone tender filed by the appellant and the offer made by the appellant was rejected vide letter dated 15-2-1994. The learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation supported the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government.

(3.) It is clear from the facts cited supra that the respondent-Corporation merely sought confirmation from the appellant, since no indication was made regarding compliance of Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the tender, as to whether she is agreeable to pay the bid amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of final acceptance of the tender and the appellant agreed to pay the same vide letter dt. 14-8-92. It is stated in the said letter that 'we now await the acceptance of our tender bid'. The said statement of the appellant indicates that the respondent has not accepted the tender. Hence, when there is no promise to accept the tender of the appellant, no vested right of the appellant has been violated by the respondents. Section 148 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act empowers the Corporation to sell the property moveable or immovable belonging to the Corporation only with the previous sanction of the Government. Hence, the Government, by implication,have always got the power to withdraw the sanction for selling the property of the Corporation before it is sold. Further, Clause (12) of the terms and conditions of the tender says that the officer authorised to receive the tender may postpone/cancel the tender without assigning any reason whatsoever. It is settled principle that unless the tender is accepted, no rights will accrue to the contract covered by the tender.