JYOTHI KRISHNA ENGINEERS Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD REP
LAWS(APH)-1992-11-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 27,1992

JYOTHI KRISHNA ENGINEERS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GOUSIA FAYAZ VS. SKIMS [LAWS(J&K)-2013-12-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to declare that the petitioner's bid is the lowest and the work of construction of branch building at Latur should be allotted to it by the issuance of a mandamus.
(2.)In response to a tender notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner submitted its tender. Sealed tenders were invited for the construction of the branch building of the respondent at Latur, Latur District, Maha-rashtra State. Tender notice prescribed the last date for submitting the tender documents as 27-7-1992. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its tender on the said date together with earnest money deposit for a sum of Rs. 63,260.00 in the form of "Term Deposit Receipt". According to the petitioner it was a regular tenderer for State Bank of Hyderabad and awarded work on earlier occasions and on all the earlier occasions, earnest money deposit was made by it in the form of "Term Deposit Receipt". According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner's tender is the lowest. Even so, it's tender was not accepted on the ground that the 'term deposit receipt' was submitted instead of demand draft as required in the conditions of tender. There is no difference between demand draft and term deposit receipt and, therefore, rejecting the tender on that ground alone is not sustainable. It was also stated in the affidavit that all this has happened due to the fact.that the respondent wanted to give the work to another tenderer of their choice and that the respondent is making attempts to get the approval of the Executive Committee on 23-10-1992 of its acceptance of tender of another. Therefore, this writ petition is filed for the reliefs mentioned above.
(3.)Counter is filed on behalf of the respondent refuting emphatically all the allegations made in the affidavit regarding the awarding of work to another tenderer of their choice as well as that the rejection of the tender of the petitioner is on a silly pretext and that they have been making attempts to get the approval of the Executive Committee of the acceptance of the tender of another etc.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.