ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHIRABAD HYDERABAD Vs. ADITYA MASS COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED SOMAJIGUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) According to the petitioner-respondent, he responded to a tender-notice and submitted his tender with the earnest money deposited of Rupees twenty lakhs. Before, however, the tender was opened, he demanded withdrawal of the earnest money deposit referring to clause(14) of the Conditions of Tender. Petitioner-respondent has alleged, he could withdraw his tender before it was opened and since he intended to do so he demanded return of the earnest money deposit. In spite of the demand, it is alleged, appellant has not refunded the earnest money. Learned single Judge has directed for the return of the tender money with interest at 1% per month.

(3.) Precisely to take notice of the events, we may recall that the petitioner-respondent submitted his tender along with the demand draft of Rs.20 lakhs before 15 hours on 31-10-1996 as contemplated in the tender notice. Some persons, however, approached this Court in W.P.No.21941 of 1996 and obtained some orders. The order of the Court reached when the tender box had already opened, but the seals of the tender covers of the person who had filed their respective tenders were not opened. At that stage, the petitioner-respondent wrote a letter on 11-11-1996 slating that no reasons were given to him for non-opening of the lenders and he could not keep the huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs with uncertainty and demanded return of the said money without any delay on the ground lhat the appellant had not adhered to the terms and conditions of the tender. On 14-11-1996, the appellant replied to the said letter of the petitioner-respondent that he had signed the note recording the proceedings which took place on 31-10-1996 and it was incorrect on his part to allege that the appellant had not adhered to the terms and conditions of the tender as they could not open the seals of the tender covers because of the order of the Court In the said reply, appellant also informed the petitioner-respondent that under clause (6) the earnest money could not carry any interest even if there was any delay in the refund and under clause (15) the successful tenderer would forfeit the earnest money if he backed out after being found to be the highest tenderer. Appellant also informed the petitioner-respondent lhat he could attend the opening oftenderson 16-11-1996 al 11-30 hours. The petitioner-respondenl wrote yet another letter on 15-11-1996 stating that the question of his participation in the opening of Ihe tenders on 16-11-1996 could not arise because he had asked for return of earnest money before the opening of the tenders and as he was not interested in participating, his cover need not be opened. The appellant, however, proceeded with the opening of the sealed covers and found that the petitioner-respondent was the highest bidder. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to the petitioner-respondent vide letter dated 23-11-1996. Petitioner-respondent, however, insisted for the refund of the earnest money in his letter dated 8-12-1996. The appellant replied to the said letter of the petitioner-respondent on 24-12-1996 and informed him that the earnest money stood forfeited.