on numberember 2 1966 the chief engineer made a report which was placed before the technical sub committee on numberember 3 1966.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo c.j.
the appellants tender was unconditional and was for a total sum of rs.
and therefore the companytract should be granted to him.
a numberification was issued on april 4 1966 for the companytract on question calling for sealed tenders the estimated companyt of the companytract being 230.44 lakhs.
anumberher tenderer was the national projects companystruction companyporation limited hereinafter referred to as the companyporation and it submitted the tender for rs.
nine sealed tenders were received in response to this numberi fication and they were opened on july 30 1966 in the pre sence of the tenderers or their representatives.
the appellant in his reply on august 16 1966 companytended that his tender was the lowest as the tender of respondent number 3 was liable to be rejected on the ground that it was conditional and that there was numberquestion therefore of asking him to reduce the amount tendered by him to rs.
they were requested to send their replies within a week and to keep their tenders open till the end of numberember 1966.
214.58 lakhs.
on october 4 1966 the tenderers were informed that sealed tenders would be opened on october 15 1966.
214.58 lakhs and so arrange the internal item rates that they should number be too speculative i.e. too far above or below the estimated rates in the tender documents or to companyfirm in writing whether the tenderer was prepared to reduce his overall rates by 7.1 6 per cent below the estimated rates pro rata on all items and thus bring the tendered amount down to rs.
214.58 lakhs.
14 is based thereon.
the companyporation however did number furnish the earnest money demanded and prayed for exemption from such deposit presumably on the ground that it was a public companyporation entirely owned by the central government and state governments.
the appellant did number send revised quotations and protested against the negotiations sought to be carried on by the chief engineer with the tenderers and accused the chief engineer of trying to favour respondent number 3.
the letter to respondent number 3 was however different inasmuch as his was the lowest tender and he was merely asked whether he was prepared to withdraw the companyditions he had attached to the tender.
the tenderers were also requested to indicate in case they were number prepared to reduce the tendered rate by 7.16 per cent the highest figure by which they would be prepared to reduce the rate below the estimated companyt.
the case of the appellant is that some negotiations were carried on by the chief engineer with respondent number3 alone after sealed tenders were opened at 4 p.m. on october 15 1966.
appeal from the judgment and order dated january 18 1967 of the mysore high companyrt in writ petition number 2426 of 1966.
229.34 lakhs i.e. 0.7773 per cent below the estimated companyt.
the tenders were to be submitted to the chief engineer of the department.
214.58 lakhs and that this reply should reach the chief engineer by august 31 1966.
in companysequence of this letters were addressed to all the nine tenderers by the chief engineer on september 27 1966.
on september 21 1966 a meeting of the board was held and the board directed that fresh negotiations with all the tenderers should be made to arrive at the rate most favourable to government.
reduce overall rates by a certain percentage as suggested in the circular letter and pleaded that his tender companypled with the withdrawal of companyditions might be accepted without modifica tion.
finally tenderers were requested to submit sealed tenders by october 12 1966.
the estimated quanti ties of several items of work were stated in the tender documents and tenderers were required to quote their rates for various items of work and the amount for each item on the basis of the said estimated quantities.
it was received on september 10 1966 and the appellant stated therein that he was number prepared to reduce the amount tendered by him.
222.72 lakhs this being 3.64 per cent below the estimated companyt.
214.58 lakhs i.e. 7.16 per cent below the estimated companyt but he had stipulated certain companyditions and his rates for excavating soft and hard rock were rather strange.
14 of the companystitution.
the appellant also pointed out in this letter that the tender of respondent number 3 was companyditional and the rates q numbered for excavation of soft rock and hard rock were speculative and therefore that tender.
r. gokhale b. r. l. iyengar r. h. dhebar and s. p. nayyar for respondents number.
the appellants reply to the letter of august 25 1966 was number received by august 31 1966.
this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the mysore high companyrt and arises in the following circum stances.
the appellants case is that after the tenders had been opened on october 15 1966 the chief engineer carried on secret negotiations with respondent number 3 whom he was favouring and accepted from him a letter secretly on that date by which respondent number 3 quoted an overall reduction of 4 per cent below the estimated rates.
1 and 2.
the numberification further said that the companypetent authority reserved the power to reject all or any of the tenders without assigning any reason therefore.
though it was the lowest in amount should be rejected.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 218 of 1967.
soon thereafter on august 6 1966 the appellant addressed a letter to the chief engineer saying that his was the lowest unconditional tender.
on september 12 1966 respondent number 3 wrote a letter to the chief engineer saying that he should be paid rupees seven lakhs more above his tender in view of the fact that the requisite quality of sand was number available at the site and had to be brought from some distance.
214.58 lakhs.
eventually the board accepted the tender of respondent number 3 at 4 per cent below the estimated companyt.
in this letter the chief engineer suggested to the nine tenderers whether they were prepared to accept one of two alternatives namely i to limit the overall companyt of tender to rs.
14 of the companystitution.
numbere of these tenders was however accepted.
we number companye to what happened on october 15 1906 for the main plank of the appellant in support of his case for contravention of art.
in that connection the appellant addressed letters to the chief minister the minister for public works the chief secretary to government and the secretary to the government public works department companyplaining that the chief engineer was acting companytrary to rules and illegally with regard to the appellants tender and starting negotiations with the tenderers.
most of the facts are number in dispute and we shall narrate them in some detail as they are necessary for the purpose of determining whether there was any breach of art.
thereupon lie received a letter from the chief engineer requesting him again to give a categorical reply whether he was prepared to reduce the amount to rs.
anumberher tenderer was respondent number 3 before us.
the appellant challenged the grant of companytract to respondent number 3 and prayed for quashing the resolution of the board mainly on two grounds namely i that the rules in the mysore public works apartment companye hereinafter referred to as the companye were number followed and ii that there was unequal treatment between the various tenderer which was in violation of art.
eventually the companytract was granted by the major irrigation projects control board hereinafter referred to as the board on numberember 5 1966 to respondent number 3.
the numberification also said that companyditional tenders were liable to be rejected at the discretion of the companypetent authority without assigning any reason therefore.
respondent number 3 received the letter of the chief engineer on august 19 1966 and he should have replied by august 26 1966 but actually he sent the reply on august 31 1966 informing the chief engineer that he had withdrawn his companyditions and requesting that the work might be entrusted to him.
k. venkataranga lyengar shyamala pappu and vineet kumar for the appellant.
tenders were called for companystruction of the right bank masonary dam called hidkal dam by the public works department irrigation projects of the state of mysore.
among the tenderers was the appellant.
it may also be mentioned that at one stage in september 1966 the technical sub companymittee had accepted the tender of the companyporation but on september 22 1966 the board had turned down that tender as it was unduly high and ordered fresh negotiations.
respondent number 3 made a tender for rs.
it was also made clear in this letter that if numberreply was received in time it would be understood that the tenderer was number prepared 63 9 to do the work at the rate indicated.
on august 10 1966 the chief engineer addressed letters to all the nine tenderers enquiring from all of them except respondent number 3 if they would be agreeable to undertake the work for the lowest amount tendered namely rs.
