- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22-7-97 Annexure-6 to the writ peti tion and for a mandamus directing the respondents to open and consider the tender of petitioners and others and to accept the tender of the petitioner No. 1 if it is lowest.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Indian Institute of Tech nology, published a notice in various news papers including Dainik Jagran on 4-6-97 inviting tenders for supply and fixing of false roofing and changing of old roofing in the building of the Institute. A true copy of the notice is Annexure- 1 to the petition. In paragraph-6 of the petition it is stated that under the terms of the tender Rs. 1,50,000/- had to be deposited as earnest money by the tenderer by way of fixed deposit receipt in the name of the Institute which was refundable to the tenderer in case the tender was not accepted. In para-graph-7 it is stated that petitioner No. 1 Obtained tender form and filled it on 14-7-97. He also obtained Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 12-7-97. In paragraph-13 it is stated that Vijai Bank which issued the Fixed Deposit Receipt, had noted the name of the petitioner No. 2 i. e. M/s Vineemee Associates who was al legedly the authorised distributor for U. P. A true copy of the said letter dated 12- 7-97 in this connection is Annexure-2. The petitioner No. 2 also annexed a letter dated 12-7-97 addressed to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, stating that they had deposited the Fixed Deposit Receipt from Vijaya Bank, a true copy of which is Annexure-3. In paragraph-15 of the petition it is stated that at the time of opening of the tenders petitioners were not allowed to participate and the tenders were opened in their absence on 22-7-97 by Respondent No. 2. First envelopes con taining Fixed Deposit Receipt of earnest money were opened. Respondent No. 2 informed the representative of the petitioners' that the draft of earnest money cannot be accepted for the reasons that the amount dep sited in Vijaya Shree Units was not a Fixed Deposit Receipt, and that the amount of Fixed Deposit Receipt had not been deposited by the petitioner No. 1. On this the petitioner immediately con tacted Vijaya Bank, which had given the Fixed Deposit Receipt and the said Bank sent a letter to the respondent Institute by fax on the same day i. e. 22-7-97 informing that Vijaya Shree Units was a product name given to the Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by the said Bank. A true copy of the letter is Annexure-4. Regarding the second objection the Director of the petitioner No. 2 informed the Institute that the petitioner No. 2 is the agent of petitioner No. 1 and had been authorised to deposit the Fixed Deposit Receipt. True copy of letter dated 23- 7-97 is Annexure-5. However, the Institute by letter dated 22-7- 97 informed the petitioners that their tenders were defective. A true copy of the letter dated 22-7-97 is Annexure-6. In paragraph-18, it is stated that two other tenders had not been accepted not any agreement had been executed. It is alleged that respondents wrongly rejected the tender of the petitioners. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Indian Institute of Tech nology. In paragraph-8 of the counter-af fidavit it is stated that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- required to be deposited as earnest money by Fixed Deposit Receipt could only be deposited by the petitioner No. 1 and not by any other person. Hence, the deposit by the petitioner No. 2 was invalid. In paragraph-10, it is stated that tenders had to be submitted by 11. 00 a. m. on 14-7-97 but by that time only two tenders had been received. The tenders of petitioner No. 1 were not submitted by that time. The time was extended till 11. 00 a. m. on 22-7-97 and opening of the tender was fixed for 11. 30 a. m. on the same day vide Annexure-CA-1. The representative of the petitioner No. 1 submitted the tender on 22-7-97 before 11. 00 a. m. In paragraph- 12, it is stated that allegations of petitioner No. 2 was an after thought and the deposit was invalid. The same al legations were made in paragraphs-14,16 and 17 of the counter- affidavit. Hence, the tender was not considered.
(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed reiterating the allegations in the petition. Annexure-GA-6 to the counter- affidavit is a letter of the Director of the Institute to Gautam Suri. In this letter it is stated that the petitioner has not fulfilled many condi tions. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. In our opinion, the stand of the respondents is correct. The Fixed Deposit Receipt had to be deposited by the petitioner No. 1 and not by petitioner No. 2. The name and address of the holders of the Fixed Deposit Receipt was petitioner No. 2 and not petitioner No. 1. Thus it appears that petitioner No. 2 had deposited the amount and provided the Fixed Deposit Receipt and not petitioner No. 1 The respondents were thus clearly justified in rejecting such a tender on the ground that there was possibility of sublet ting of the contract. Thus, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;