|
|
 |
(2007) 2 MLJ 787 (Mad)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Present : A. Kulasekaran, J.
Case Number(s) : W.P. (MD) No. 4769 of 2006 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2006
Judgement Date :
Thursday 08th of February 2007
| A. Soosai Mary | .....Appellant(s) | | Versus | | | Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Trichy | .....Respondent(s) |
(A) Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Act (1998), Section 10(3) Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules (2000), Rule 14(2) Constitution of India (1950), Article 226 Tender Petitioner, participant in tender invited by respondent-State Impugned order directing petitioner to get back Earnest Money Deposit and consequential re-tender notification, challenged Challenge on ground that impugned order not containing details of cancellation of tender or alleged non-appearance of petitioner for negotiation Held, averments in affidavit filed in support of writ petition and reply affidavit, contradictory No evidence, produced to show requisite certificates, furnished by petitioner Rejection of petitioners tender, justified as petitioner did not come forward to negotiate in terms of Section 10(3) of Act of 1998 Consistent failure on part of petitioner in making request for extending validity period in terms of Rule 14(2) of Rules of 2000 Non-mentioning of details alone in impugned order not invalidate order of rejection Petitioner fully aware as to why her tender was rejected Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Constitution of India (1950), Article 14 Tender Merely an offer and no right flows from such an offer, unless it is accepted absolutely Principles under Article 14, to be kept in view when accepting or refusing tender However, right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power No question of infringement of Article 14 when rejection is not arbitrary or unreasonable or in public interest.
Oops. Login required for Full Text of Judgment.
You are not Logged in. Kindly Login.
If you are a new user then Register.
|
|
 |
|
 |
