- (1.) The petitioner No. 2 , Dhanraj Hari Prasad, is a registered partnership firm, (hereinafter referred to as the said firm), of which the petitioner No. 1 is one of the partners, In this Rule they have challenged orders dated April 3, 1972, June 3, 1972 and April 2. 1973, as wrongful, illegal,arbitrary and bad apart from contending them to be perverse. The particulars of those orders would be available hereafter.
(2.) It is an admitted fact that pursuant to an invitation of tender by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (hereinafter referred to as the said Respondent No. 2) the said firm submitted the necessary tender in respect of 10,000 pieces of Kit Bags of certain specifications @ Rs. 8.68 P. per piece, sales tax extra and on interalia the following amongst other therms : (a) The Purchaser ; Governor of Rajasthan. (b) Delivery ; F.O.R. Howrah. (c) Delivery within 10 weeks from the date of the order, (d) Payment; 95 per cent on proof of despatch and the rest five per cent after receipt of the stores. (e) The Tender shall remain open for acceptance till 13th July 1970. It is also an admitted fact that the date of acceptance of the said tender was extended by mutual consent to August 13, 1970. There is also no dispute that on or about August 13, 1970, the concerned Assistant Director (Supplies), (hereinafter referred to as the said Respondent No. 4), accepted the tender of the said firm for and on behalf of the Governor of Rajasthan and consequent to such acceptance of the tender the State of Rajasthan, placed an order of 5000 pieces of Kit Bags on condition as appears from Annexure 'B' that the delivery to be effected within one month after receipt of formal acceptance of the tender. Thus, the delivery was to be effected on or by September 15, 1970. It has been stated by the petitioners that they received the said acceptance of tender within the jurisdiction of this Court and their place of business is at Calcutta on August 18, 1970 and they by their letters of August 21, 1970, September 14, 1970 and September 22, 1970, recorded their inability to effect the supply within the time as specified and asked for refixing the relevant date. Such demand for refixation of the date, was at first refused but thereafter, the said Respondent No. 4 refixed the date of delivery on or by October 31, 1970. Such refixation, as appears was done for and on behalf of the President of India. It has been alleged by the petitioners that such refixation for and on behalf of the President of India was improper, as the acceptance of the tender was for and on behalf of the Governor of Rajasthan and as such it has also been contended that there was no concluded contract between the petitioner and the Government of Rajasthan and the subsequent refixation for and on behalf of the President of India should be deemed to be a separate contract or at least a counter offer, which was not accepted by them.
(3.) The plea as aforesaid appears to be without any substance because the petitioners themselves have asked for extension of dates of delivery of goods under the acceptance of tender dated August 13, 1970, which as mentioned hereinbefore was agreed to, and the necessary extension was granted in the manner as mentioned above. It has of course been contended that those representations were made on misapprehension that a valid contract had come into existence. In the meantime, the said firm offered inspection of 1200 Kit Bags, which number the answering Respondents have stated to be 1500. Such inspection, according to the return to the Rule appears to have been taken on October 21, 1971 and as the goods were rejected as they were not according to the specification and satisfaction of the authorities concerned.;