Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THIS intra -court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed with costs the writ petition (CWP No. 4898/1990) filed by the petitioner -appellant against the demand notice dated 15.09.1990 (Annex.1) as issued by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Kishangarh for recovery of an amount of Rs. 99,028.61.
(2.) THE writ petition aforesaid was filed with the averments, inter alia, that the petitioner -appellant, a registered partnership firm, submitted its tender in response to the notice inviting tenders ('NIT') for execution of the work of excavation of RMC Chain 320 -350 subject to certain conditions and the appellant did not withdraw from the condition though asked for by the Executive Engineer, Som Kambla Amba Canal Division by the letter dated 22.05.1979 (Annex.4); that under the telegram dated 31.08.1979, the Superintending Engineer Irrigation, Construction Circle, Udaipur stated that the tender aforesaid had been approved by the Additional Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer be contacted to start the work; and that the Assistant Engineer concerned informed the appellant by the letter dated 01.09.1979 (Annex.5) that the work had been allotted to it at 6.71 % above BSR rates and the Executive Engineer concerned be contacted for necessary action. It was further averred that the Executive Engineer, by his letter dated 09.10.1979 (Annex.6), asked the appellant to immediately start the work; and threatened to take proceedings under Clauses (2) and (3) of the agreement in case of default whereupon the appellant informed the Executive Engineer by the communication dated 11.10.1979 (Annex.7) that the allotment of work was not as per the conditions subject to which the tender was given and there was no question of starting the work. The appellant further averred that a number of letters were exchanged and the correspondence in the same line continued until the letter dated 06.03.1980 (Annex.8) whereby the Executive Engineer stated that the tender condition had been accepted but, by that time, the validity of the tender had already come to an end; and the fact was notified to the authorities concerned under the communication dated 20.03.1980. The appellant referred to the exchange of further communications and submitted that ultimately, the Executive Engineer was informed by the letter dated 10.06.1980 (Annex.10) that the work allotted under the letter dated 31.08.1979 was not acceptable to the appellant for the reason that the tender was submitted subject to certain conditions and the department did not mention anything regarding acceptance of the conditions at the time of issuing the work order.
(3.) IT may be pointed out at this juncture that in the said communication dated 10.06.1980 (Annex.10), the appellant stated that though the department had issued a revised letter dated 02.11.1979 mentioning acceptance of the conditions but the validity of the tender had expired on 31.08.1979. This communication dated 02.11.1979, as referred in the letter dated 10.06.1980, has not been produced on record and, as noticed, the suggestion in the writ petition has been as if the Executive Engineer stated acceptance of the tender conditions only by the letter dated 06.03.1980 (Annex.8). Be that as it may, in sum and substance, the stand of the appellant had been that there was no fault on its part and, when the offer had not been accepted with the attached condition within the period of validity and when no agreement was entered into between itself and the respondents, the appellant was not obliged to execute the work.;