B The tender, however, was recalled in February, 1976 by the Executive Engineer Construction Division No.
The letter further stated that the Engineer in charge on behalf of the Governor of Punjab had levied a penalty of Rs.2,55,0000.
This was followed by the letter dated 3lst August, 1976 from the Executive Engineer.
Reply was sent by the respondent to the effect stating that numbervalid companytract in respect of the companystruction of high level bridge over river in Mile No.
The Executive Engineer informed the respondent telegraphically that the tender submitted by him had been accepted and asked the respondent to take up the work in hand.
P. 7 and Ext.
No such agreement was ever signed.
The respondent.
The Suptd.
4,56,040 for arbitration and asked the firm to submit the reply in duplicate within 30 days from the issue of the letter.
however, withdrew the offer on 6th November.
But on 15th April, 1980, the Executive Engineer intimated the respondent that as he had failed to start the work, and he became liable for action under clause 2 of the agreement.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover and Mrs. Smita Rao for the Respondent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.1987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal involves a short question and the field is more or less companyered by the companystitutional provisions as well as the authorities of this Court.
On 22nd November, 1976 the respondent contractor in its letter made it clear that numberagreement had been signed between the parties.
In reply to the letter dated lst December, 1976 from the Executive Engineer, the respondent vide letter dated 6th December, 1976 reiterated and repeated that legal infirmity companyld number be met by the companysiderations as made by the appellant.
CM/3 T OPBK/3503/76 dated 24.3.76 and letter No.
19/5 of Patiala Pehewa Road, ever came into existence between the parties.
Engineer, PWD B R and Executive Engineer Construction Division No.
It was companytended that the telegram as well as the letter mentioned hereinbefore revealed that the tender of the respondent was number accepted by the Governor of Punjab, as it was mandatory under the Constitution in order to amount to a valid acceptance and to create a binding companytract between the parties.
He also admitted in his deposition that the letter of acceptance had number been issued in the name of the Governor of Punjab.
CH/3 T OPBK/3341/76 dated 26.2.76 and also further modification of the same as mentioned in your letter No.
The Executive Engineer Construction Division No.
The Arbitrator again on 2nd July, 1983 issued a letter after a lapse of one year and the same was replied more or less in the same manner.
The learned Judge of the High Court numbered that in the acceptance letter Ext.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION Civil Appeal No.
1 PWD B and R Branch, Patiala.
Their tender for lumpsum amount of rupees thirtyone lacs and fifty thousands for companystruction of high level bridge over markanda river crossing Patiala Pehewa PG NO 542 road has been accepted.
The Executive Engineer informed the respondent on that date, who happened to be the lowest tenderer and before the tender companyld be finally companysidered, that the drawings in triplicate be submitted to the Chief Engineer PWD B and R, Suptd.
1915 of Patiala pehewa Road.
1 PWD B R Branch, Patiala, invited tenders for the work called Construction of high level bridge over Tangri Nadi in Mile No.
776 of 1988.
The respondent again submitted tender on 3 lst August 1976.
The above position, however, was number accepted by the respondent and he advised the appellant to settle the matter in Court.
The High Court after discussing the relevant evidence came to the companyclusion that there was numbervalid companytract.
RW 1/14, the Executive Engineer had required the respondent at the end to sign the agreement which was under preparation within ten days.
CM/3 T OPBK dated 24.3.76 alongwith the Conditions mentioned in the Original Tender received vide your letter No.
There was a revision to the High Court.
The respondent to the said invitation submitted the tender for the aforesaid PG NO 538 work, which was opened on 7th October, 1975.
Nayyar for the Appellants.
1993 of 1986.
4466 Dated 24.8.76 Copy companyfirmation by post is forwarded to M s Om Parkash Baldev Krishan, New Delhi 5 for their information and necessary action.
