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.1398 OF 2014
DATED: 14.11.2014 Between:
Shaik Afzal … Appellant And The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1398 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 11.07.2014 in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
It appears that the writ petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the Writ Petition.
“…the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ specially Writ of CERTIORARI
a) call for the records to and connected with the impugned orders dated 8.6.2009 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and
b) Consequently direct the respondents not to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner and
c) Further direct the respondents not to blacklist the petitioner.
Thereafter, the aforesaid prayer is sought to be amended by a Miscellaneous Application. The prayer which was sought to be amended is as follows:
d) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for refund of EMD vide proceedings No.PDS2 / Movt / FG5 (24) / 991 / 2009-2010, dated 26.12.2013 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 1 (g) of the Constitution of India.
e) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to refund the EMD of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
From the above, it is clear that the writ petitioner has deposited the earnest money and prayed for refund of the amount with interest.
The writ petitioner wanted to enter into transport contract with the respondent as such the tender was quoted and he was declared as highest bidder and his tender was accepted. Accordingly, he deposited the earnest money. Thereafter, he was asked to enter into formal agreement. Despite repeated opportunities being granted, he did not enter into an agreement. These factual findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge have not been challenged in this appeal so to say. In the tender conditions, it is clearly mentioned as follows.
“No tenderer is entitled to withdraw his offer at any stage during or after the tender process. If he withdraws the offer, his EMD stands forfeited without any notice.”
Although the tender was submitted, as we have recorded above, despite several opportunities were granted, no formal agreement was entered. Therefore, we conclude that there has been a constructive withdrawal of the tender by the writ petitioner. Hence, the learned trial Judge found complete breach of aforesaid tender condition on the part of the writ petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any merit in this appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily.
No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
14th NOVEMBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni