TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.5 made such offer separately and much later. There was nothing illegal or arbitrary on the part of Railway Administration in accepting the offer of the appellant, which was made at the time of submitting the tender itself. - Appeal (civil) 4359-4361 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2002 - S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ. JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Leave granted. The first respondent invited tenders for execution of five items of work including supply, delivery and stacking of 75,000 cubic metre Machine crushed track ballast as per specifications at its depot in Naurozabad and loading it into railway wagons. The supply period was for 24 months. The conditions in the tender notice required that the rates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to rebate. Agreement was entered into by him on 19.04.2001. Respondent No.5 filed a writ petition claiming that his tender should have been accepted, as the rates offered by him are the lowest. The learned Single Judge, before whom acceptance of the tender offered by the appellant was challenged, took the view that the tender notice did not admit of an offer being made in the form of rebate as offered by the appellant and it was also clear that an offer made by respondent No. 5 after the opening of the tender is of no consequence and gave the direction of taking fresh offers from the appellant and Respondent No. 5. The matter was carried in appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench, after adverting to several decisions on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial part of the tender otherwise it is only a collateral term. This legal position has been well explained in G.J.Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka Ors., 1990(2) SCC 488. In the present case, the short question that falls for consideration is whether the tender offered by the appellant with the rebate could have been accepted and whether such acceptance would affect the interests of any other party. The letter dated 27.2.2001 accompanying the tender made by the appellant after setting out rate offered by him also set out certain circumstances with a note in the following terms :- "Note :- I would like to offer if the tender is finalised in my favour : (a) 5% reduction in rate within 45 days; (b) 3% reduction in rate within 60 day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er while Respondent No.5 made such offer after opening of the tenders. It is difficult to conceive that the Respondent No.5 who is a prudent businessman would not be aware of commercial practice of giving rebate or concession in the event of quick finalization of a transaction. What the appellant offered was part of the tender itself while the Respondent No.5 made such offer separately and much later. There was nothing illegal or arbitrary on the part of Railway Administration in accepting the offer of the appellant, which was made at the time of submitting the tender itself. In the result, we allow these appeals by setting aside the orders made by the High Court both by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge and dismiss the wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
