HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1504 OF 2014
DATED: 06.12.2014 Between:
P.Saradamma … Appellant And The Chief Engineer, Transmission, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1504 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.09.2014 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition deciding the same on merit.
The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging the cancellation of letter of intent. In order to support the challenge, it has been stated in the Writ Petition that in spite of acceptance of tender quotation of the appellant, no agreement was entered into although the letter of intent was issued.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without giving any notice, cancellation of letter of intent was arbitrary and illegal. Moreover, he argued that by reason of the cancellation, the legitimate and reasonable expectation of the appellant’s right of having contract for the works has been denied.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
We do not think that the appellant does have any justiciable right as mere acceptance of the tender does not give any right either legitimate or equitable so much so she can claim any legitimate or reasonable expectation. No one can compel any person to enter into an agreement. Issuance of letter of intent after accepting the tender does not create any right. Moreover, the respondents rightly or wrongly cancelled the tender process and invited fresh tenders for their own requirements. The Court cannot compel the respondents to proceed on the basis of the earlier tender process because policy of cancellation is the business expediency, and the business expediency cannot be appreciated by the Court of law.
Therefore, we do not find any flaw in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition. We uphold the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the appellant to participate in the fresh tender process, if so advised. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
6th DECEMBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni