D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2696 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th October, 2012 and hence, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.2. Factual Matrix: Notice inviting tender for construction of godown at district Koderma was published by Food Corporation of India on 19th October, 2011. This appellant had offered for construction of the godown. The technical bids and financial bids were submitted which were opened by the respondent no.1 and this appellant was found to be lowest no.1. Whenever any financial aspect is involved, there is always a condition that offer shall be valid for a particular period. This condition may be imposed by an offeror or in the notice inviting tender itself. This condition has a direct nexus with inflation. Today's condition for construction of the godown in rupees 'X' cannot be valid for one dozen years, because, the cost of construction is enhancing day by day. Looking to the condition in notice inviting tender which is a condition no.11 the offer of the offeror was valid for 90 days from the date of which the bid was opened (28th of November, 2011). There is also mentioning about further extension of 45 days at the behest of the Food Corporation of India. Food Corporation of India exercises this option to extend the validity of the bid for further 45 days, after expiry of 90 days from the date on which the technical bid was opened. Thus, the technical bid was opened on 28th November, 2011, hence, 90 days will be over on 23rd February, 2012. Further extension of period of validity of the bid of 45 days will also be over on 10th April, 2012. Now, the bottle necks starts. Food Corporation of India has sent e-mail on 16th April, 2012 that vide letter of Food Corporation of India dated 10th April, 2012, the bid has been accepted. This e-mail dated 16th April, 2012 contains the letter dated 10th April, 2012. On 14th April, 2012, this appellant has written a letter to Food Corporation of India for returning of - (a) Bank guarantee worth Rs. 15,00,000/- (b) Earnest money worth Rs. 3,00,000/- Moreover, the respondent has dispatched the letter dated 10th April, 2012 on 12th April, 2012 by speed post, which was received by this appellant on 18th April, 2012. Thus, the validity of the bid initially was only up to 23rd February, 2012 and after the extension of period of 45 days it was valid only up to 10th April, 2012. Thereafter, there was no validity of the bid, as per Condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender floated by the Food Corporation of India and before the e-mail is sent by the Food Corporation of India dated 16th April, 2012, a letter was written by this appellant dated 14th April, 2012 that the Bank guarantee may be returned and earnest money may also be returned. Neither the Bank guarantee money was returned nor the earnest money amount was returned hence, a writ petition was preferred by this appellant being W.P. (C) No.2696 of 2012 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Argument canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant: (i) Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in pursuance of the notice inviting tender by the Food Corporation of India dated 19th October, 2011 a bid for construction of godown at district Koderma was filled up by this appellant and given to the Food Corporation of India. As the said bid contains the cost of construction of the godown, always it has a valid period for few months which is 90 days as per Condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender from the date of opening of technical bid. Technical bid was opened on 28th November, 2011. Thus, initially the bid was valid up to 23rd February, 2012. This period of validity can be extended for further period of 45 days by the Food Corporation of India. This option was operated by Food Corporation of India vide order dated 23rd February, 2012 (Annexure-3) and the validity of the bid was extended for further period of 45 days. This period of extension of 45 days validity of the bid was completed on 10th April, 2012. Hence, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that on and from 11th April, 2012, the bid was not valid one at all. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (C) No.2696 of 2012 and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by this appellant deserves to be quashed and set aside. (ii) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that on 14th April, 2012 a letter (Annexure-4), was written by this appellant to the Food Corporation of India for returning of the Bank guarantee worth Rs. 15,00,000/- and earnest money worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. (iii) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that vide e-mail dated 16th April, 2012 Food Corporation of India intimated to this appellant that it has accepted the bid of this appellant on 10th April, 2012. As per paragraph no. 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the Food Corporation of India in W.P. (C) No.2696 of 2012, it has been stated by Food Corporation of India that the letter of acceptance was posted on 12th April, 2012. Thus, after the validity of the bid period is over on 12th April, 2012, a letter was written for acceptance of the bid and hence such acceptance has got no value in the eye of law, especially, when a letter has already been written by this appellant dated 14th April, 2012 for returning of Bank guarantee and earnest money. (iv) It has also been contended by the counsel for the appellant that looking to Annexure - 6 series (page - 112), the so - called acceptance of the bid dated 10th April, 2012 was sent through speed post by Food Corporation of India dated 12th April, 2012 which is after the validity period of the bid which was received by this appellant on 18th April, 2012. Thus, the letter dated 10th April, 2012 of acceptance of the bid was not put in communication till 12th April, 2012 and hence, as per section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the proposer (appellant) when it is put in a course of transmission to the appellant. (v) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 667, para 7 reads as under: "7. section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 envisages communication of proposal, acceptance of proposal and the revocation of the proposal and acceptance. Communication of proposal is complete under Section 4 when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. Communication of an acceptance is complete-as against the proposer, when it is put in the 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. Under Section 7 "in order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must (1) be absolute and unqualified; (2) be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted.....". Under Section 10 "all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void". Section 31 defines "contingent contract" to mean "a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen". A contingent contract to do or not to do anything, if an unforeseen future event happens, cannot be enforced by law, under Section 32, unless and until that event has happened. If the event becomes impossible, such contract becomes void. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "arbitration agreement" to mean "a written agreement to submit, present or future differences, to arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not". To constitute an arbitration agreement, there must be an agreement between the parties, viz., the parties must be ad idem. The parties are not ad idem unless they agree to the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. As seen, under the Contract Act unless there is an agreement, i.e., there is an acceptance of the proposal, the contract is not complete. It is seen that the draft agreement dated 22-6-1984 was sent to the respondent for acceptance. Admittedly, clause (10) was deleted and clause (12) was materially altered unilaterally to convert joint liability to individual liability of the appellant. It would, therefore, be a counter-proposal signed by the respondent and communicated to the appellant. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice the Articles of Association of the appellant-Company, a State Government Undertaking. Article 125 of Articles of Association gives power to the Board of Directors of the appellant-Company and Article 126, clause (xii) confers power on the Board of Directors "to refer claims or demands, by or against the Company to arbitration". Under Article 125, the Company has the control and the competent authority has power to sign the contract on behalf of the Company. After the courter-proposal was signed by the respondent, the appellant had not signed any contract to bind the parties." (vi) Admittedly, as submitted by the counsel for the appellant the date on which the acceptance was put in a course of transmission is 12th April, 2012 and not 10th April, 2012. Thus, after validity of the bid period is over which is on 10th April, 2012, a communication of acceptance of proposal was put in transmission on 12th April, 2012. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2696 of 2012 dated 8th October, 2012 and hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Argument canvassed by learned counsel for the respondents-Food Corporation of India: (i) Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that once a bid or proposal is made by this appellant it will never lapse unless, it is revoked. Thus, even after, this expiry of 90 days or even expiry of further extension of 45 days of the validity of the bid period, the bid of this appellant or proposal of this appellant shall remain valid till it is revoked by this appellant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing writ petition preferred by this appellant. (ii) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the technical bid was opened on 28th November, 2011 which was valid up to period of 90 days i.e., from 23rd February, 2012. Thereafter, as per Condition no.11 of notice inviting tender, validity period was extended by Food Corporation of India for further period of 45 days i.e., up to 10th April, 2012 and on the last date of the validity of the bid it was accepted by the Food Corporation of India. Hence, the Bank guarantee and the earnest money cannot be returned to this appellant. This aspect of the matter has been rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing writ petition preferred by this appellant. (iii) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-Food Corporation of India that acceptance of the bid dated 10th April, 2012 was communicated to this appellant by e-mail dated 16th April, 2012 and simultaneously by speed post letter which was dispatched on 12th April, 2012 as stated in paragraph no.14 of counteraffidavit filed by Food Corporation of India in the writ petition. Thus, during the validity period of bid itself the offer was accepted by the respondent. (iv) Alternatively, it has been submitted by the counsel for respondent no.1 that the offer of this appellant was valid till it is revoked. Thus, before the letter dated 14th April, 2012 (Annexure-4) written by this appellant for returning of Bank guarantee and the earnest money, the offer of this appellant was accepted by respondent no.1 and was dispatched also, on 12th April, 2012. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single while dismissing writ petition preferred by this appellant. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.5. Reasons 6. Having heard the counsel of both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2696 of 2012 dated 8th October, 2012 mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) Notice inviting tender was floated by the Food Corporation of India-respondent no.1 for construction of the godown etc. at district-Koderma on 19th October, 2011. (ii) This appellant has filled-up bids, i.e., technical bid and financial bid or the offer was put by this appellant that for a particular consideration, this appellant is ready and willing to construct the godown etc. as per notice inviting tender. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that whenever such type of construction activity is involved, the offer has to remain valid for a limited period otherwise, if the amount is offered today for construction of the godown and if actual construction is to be done after five years, the cost of construction will be more than double. This is by way of illustration. In short, whenever any financial aspect is involved in the notice inviting tender, there is bound to be a validity of the offer for a limited period. Condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender reads as under: "11. Period For Which The Offer Will Remain Open: (i) The offers shall remain open for acceptance for 90 days from the date of opening of the Technical Bid. However, FCI reserves the right to extend this period by 45 days at its discretion and this extension will be binding on the Tenderer. Thereafter this period may be further extended by the parties on mutual consent basis. (ii) Any Tenderer not keeping offers open for the prescribed period shall be summarily rejected and his EMD is liable to be forfeited." (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender, the bid was valid initially for 90 days from the date of the opening of the technical bid. Technical bid was opened on 28th November, 2011. (iv) The validity of the bid can further be extended for 45 days at the discretion of the Food Corporation of India, i.e., unilaterally. (v) Food Corporation of India vide their order dated 23rd February, 2012 (Annexure-3) extended the validity of the bid for further period of 45 days, i.e., up to 10th April, 2012. (vi) Still there is an option of further extension of the validity of the bid, but, now second extension is by mutual consent and not otherwise. This consent was never given by this appellant, meaning thereby to the validity of the bid or the offer of this appellant for the construction of the godown etc., at district-Koderma comes to an end on 10th April, 2012. (vii) Now the bottleneck starts. Meaning thereby to on 14th April, 2012 this frustrated appellant wrote a letter to the Food Corporation of India for return of his bank guarantee and earnest money which is Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs respectively. This letter is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, because the respondent had not accepted the offer of this appellant, even on the last date of validity of the bid, i.e., the respondent had not accepted the offer of this appellant till 10th April, 2012. (viii) It appears that Food Corporation of India might have came to know that this appellant has demanded for return of the bank guarantee and earnest money and therefore, Food Corporation of India by their e-mail dated 16th April, 2012 has communicated this appellant that on 10th April, 2012, Food Corporation of India has accepted bid/offer of this appellant. (ix) This acceptance of the bid on 10th April, 2012 was transmitted on 12th April, 2012 by speed post (page no.112-Annexure-6 series to this Letters Patent Appeal). (x) Thus, the question is raised before this Court whether the respondent-Food Corporation of India can accept the bid after the validity period of the bid is over and secondly, whether the offer was accepted by the Food Corporation of India on 10th April, 2012 or on 12th April, 2012 (which is a date on which the acceptance was put in transmission). (xi) For the ready reference section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under: "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. The communication of a revocation is complete,- as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge." (emphasis supplied) (xii) It ought to be kept in mind that whenever any offer is placed by the offeree for the construction etc., and the lowest amount is quoted for the construction, in such eventuality, the offer of the offeree cannot be valid for infinite time, otherwise, as for example e.g., today the offer is made to construct a particular building in Rs. 5 lakhs and the actual construction is to be made after five years, the offer shall not be valid for five years because the cost of construction might have been enhanced. Here, the offer was made by this appellant for the construction of the godown etc., at district-Koderma, looking the condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender, as stated hereinabove, the bid/offer of this appellant was never valid for infinite time. It was valid anyway for 90 days and thereafter for further period of 45 days, as stated hereinabove, the last date for validity of the period of bid was 10th April, 2012. There is a clause for further extension of the validity of the bid also, as per condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender, but, it was by mutual consent of the parties. This consent was never given by this appellant. Thus, validity of the bid was never extended by mutual consent beyond the period of 10th April, 2012. Thus, the offer comes to an end automatically after the expiry of its validity period, as stated in condition no.11. There cannot be a validity period of offer for months together and years together, especially when the acceptor is a Government or Governmental institutions in which validity period slowness is inbuilt. Private parties has their own speed. Hence, this type of "validity period" of an offer is incorporated in the notice inviting tender. (xiii) Once the validity period of the bid is over by the cessation of the time or because of efflux of time on 10th April, 2012 it cannot be accepted by respondent no.1 unless, validity period of the bid is extended by mutual consent as per condition no.11 of the notice inviting tender. There is no extension of the validity period of the bid by mutual consent. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2696 of 2012 dated 8th October, 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (xiv) Now, the question may arise on which date the offer of this appellant is said to have been accepted by the respondent no.1. The answer has already been given in section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. As per section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the date on which the offer was put in communication on that date the offer is said to have been accepted, meaning thereby to, if the offer is accepted on 10th April, 2012, but, if it is put in communication on 12th April, 2012, as per section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the offer is said to have been accepted on 12th April, 2012 and not on 10th April, 2012. Thus, the letter of acceptance of the offer is explicitly clearer and there is no ambiguity so far as the date on which communication dated 10th April, 2012 was put in transmission which is 12th April, 2012. Thus, what is material is the date on which acceptance is put in transmission (12th April, 2012) and not the mere date of acceptance of the offer (10th April, 2012). (xv) Thus, the acceptance of the offer was put in transmission on 12th April, 2012 and therefore this date shall be taken into consideration for all purposes including for the fact that whether during validity period of the bid the offer was accepted, as stated hereinabove, the validity of the bid/offer of this appellant was extended lastly up to 10th April, 2012 and offer was communicated to have been accepted on 12th April, 2012. Thus, it can be said that after expiry of the offer of this appellant it was accepted by respondent no.1. Thus, after expiry of the offer if it is accepted by respondent no.1, it has got no value in the eye of law, because, such type of acceptance of offer which is already over cannot create any contract between the parties. Thus, in absence of a valid offer on 12th April, 2012 it was accepted by respondent no.1 and therefore, no contract is coming into existence on 12th April, 2012. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. (xvi) Moreover, Food Corporation of India has sent an e-mail on 16th April, 2012 because on 14th April, 2012 the appellant has already written a letter requesting the Food Corporation of India for return of the bank guarantee and the earnest money. E-mail of the Food Corporation of India is subsequent in point of time, i.e. on 16th April, 2012. Food Corporation of India is very much aware of one of the methods of communication, namely, e-mail. What is known on 16th April, 2012 to the Food Corporation of India was also known as on 10th April, 2012. If this is not back dated acceptance of the offer, Food Corporation of India could have e-mailed on 10th April, 2012 itself to this appellant or immediately thereafter, but, they have e-mailed on 16th April, 2012, i.e., after the letter of this appellant dated 14th April, 2012. (xvii) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Riya TravelTours (India) (P) Ltd. v. C.U. Chengappa reported in (2001) 9 SCC 512 as under: "6. From the facts enumerated hereinabove, it is evidently clear that the offer of the appellant was a qualified one. The bid was not open for acceptance for an indefinite period. In the offer made by the appellant, it was clearly stated that the acceptance should be conveyed within three months which was subsequently extended up to July 1999. When, admittedly, there was delay in the acceptance of the bid, the appellant was at liberty to ask for the refund of money already paid and to withdraw from the bid at least after 9-7-1999. 7. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court insofar as it has accepted the bid of the appellant and has directed it to make the payment. The Official Receiver will refund to the appellant the earnest money deposited along with such interest as may have accrued thereon. The refund should be made within eight weeks from today." (Emphasis supplied) (xviii) Thus, it appears from the facts of the case that once the validity period of the offer comes to an end, on 10th April, 2012 and the said validity has not been extended by mutual consent, it could not have been accepted by respondent no.1. The offer is accepted on 12th April, 2012 and not on 10th April, 2012. The date of acceptance is not to be looked into at all, but, the date on which the acceptance is put in transmission is to be looked into (As per section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872). In the facts of the present case, acceptance was put in transmission on 12th April, 2012 (page no.112 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Thus, there is no consensus ad-idem and hence, also such type of acceptance of the offer cannot be resulted into a valid contract because there was no valid acceptance of the offer at all on 12th April, 2012. The offer was over on 10th April, 2012. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2696 of 2012 dated 8th October, 2012. We, hereby, direct respondent no.1 to return the amount of the bank guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs and the amount of the earnest money of Rs. 3 lakhs with a simple interest @ 5% per annum. ;