Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking quashing of Notice Inviting Tender issued by respondent no. 1, Airport Authority of India, Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, dated 11th Jury, 2013 for hotel reservation counter at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner in pursuance of N.I.T. issued in October, 2009, it was allotted the concerned work for hotel reservation counter at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi vide -order dated 5th April, 2010 for a period 01/05/2010 to 30/04/2013. Thereafter, the respondents issued another N.I.T. on 19th March, 2012 for the New Integrated Terminal Building of the Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not settle the said tender in favour of any one of the interested tenderers and vide Annexure -6 dated 17th May, 2013, the license of the petitioner was extended further from 1st April, 2013 to 30th June, 2013. He further submits that he had quoted the reserve price of Rs. 20,100/ - as the minimum reserve license fee for participating in the said N.I.T. was Rs. 20,000/ -. The respondents, however, arbitrarily without finalizing the earlier N.I.T. have once again issued the N.I.T. dated 11th July, 2013 (Annexure -7) in the similar terms for award of the same work. This action of the respondents is arbitrary and without any reason without taking any decision to cancel the said N.I.T., a fresh N.I.T. has been issued which needs to be quashed I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the writ petition, at no place it appears that after participation in the NIT dated 19th March, 2012 by the petitioner and other interested persons, any letter showing acceptance of the offer of either the petitioner or any other persons was issued by the respondents. It appears that the respondents authority did not act upon the said NIT and therefore since the petitioner was a subsisting licensee, his license was extended till 30th June, 2013 vide Annexure -6, 17th May, 2013. The respondents have issued a fresh N.I.T. for allotment of the said work in which any person like the petitioner, fulfilling eligibility criteria is entitled to participate. It is submitted that today is the last date for filling up the tender and for opening of the bids.
(3.) HOWEVER , the law in relation to the aforesaid issue is well settled by various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down from time to time rendered in the case of Haridwar Singh -Vs. -Begum Sumbrui reported in : AIR 1972 SC 1942 and also reiterated in judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & others Vrs. Om Prakash Sharma reported in JT : 2013 (5) SC 548 paragraphs 35, 36 and 34.1 and also reported in : 2013 (5) SCC 182. The opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue are being quoted hereunder: Para 35: -Further unaccepted offer of the plaintiff does not create any right or any obligation on the part of the defendant to execute the lease deed. In fact, this principle is wet settled by this Court in the case of Bhagwan Das Goverdhan Das Kedia V. Girdhari Lal A Co. [ : AIR 1966 SC 543] wherein this Court has held that mete making of an offer does not form part of the cause of action for claiming damages for breach of contract. In the case in hand, the aforesaid principle, without recourse, is applicable in the fact situation for the reason that the plaintiff was the highest bidder and his offer was merely accepted but no communication was sent to him as required under Section 3 of the Contract Act Therefore, no legal right accrued in favour of the plaintiff to invoke remedy available under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking declaratory relief as prayed in the original suit filed by the plaintiff. Para 36: -Further, the communication under Section 4 of the Contract Act speaks of when the communication will complete. It says: 4. Communication when complete. -The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete -as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor, as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. Para 36.1: -The proposal is said to have been completed when the same is accepted by the competent authority, which has not been done in the instant case. Neither the Housing Commissioner nor the Assistant Housing Commissioner accepted the proposal in writing; therefore, there is no communication of acceptance of the offer of the plaintiff. In this regard, this court in Haridwar Singh V. Begum Sumbrui [ : AIR 1972 SC 1942] has held that the communication of acceptance of the highest bid is necessary for concluding the contract in view of the aforesaid factual and legal proposition of law and the highest bid offered to take the property on lease for a period of 90 years with renewal for further 20 years for construction of the cinema hall the same was neither accepted by the competent authority nor was the same communicated. Therefore, there is no concluded contract in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plot in question and the plaintiff cannot claim any legal right and question of enforcement of the said right as provided under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act seeking declaratory relief by the plaintiff the same did not arise in the case in hand. The above important factual and legal aspects have not been examined in proper and constructive manner either by the trial court or by the second appellate court Therefore, the impugned judgment order and decree are liable to be set aside.;