Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 MP 131

Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh :- This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the ongoing recovery proceedings against the petitioner in the following circumstances:

Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1972 MP 131

The respondents had issued an advertisement inviting tenders for the sale of Tendu-Patta (leaves) from unit No. 7, Budni. The petitioner submitted a tender in response to tender notice No. 1972-X. 69, dated March 25, 1969, quoting a rate of Rs. 38.25 per standard bag. Along with the tender, the petitioner also deposited a certain amount as security.

The stipulated date for the opening of tenders was April 9, 1969. However, before the tenders were actually opened, the petitioner submitted an application (referred to as ‘Annexure A’) in which he withdrew his tender. He explicitly requested that since he had retracted his tender, it should not be opened at all. Despite this withdrawal, the tender was opened because it was the only one received for that unit. Subsequently, the Government accepted the petitioner’s tender. As the petitioner failed to execute the purchaser’s agreement, the authorities initiated recovery proceedings, seeking Rs. 24,846.12. This amount was claimed on the grounds that the Tendu leaves from the unit had been sold to another party later, and the balance was recoverable from the petitioner. {Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh }

Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 MP 131
Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1972 MP 131

The petitioner raises a two-fold argument. Firstly, he contends that since he had withdrawn his tender before it was opened and accepted, there was no valid tender on his behalf.

In response, the respondents argue that under tender condition No. 10 (b) (i), a tenderer may be permitted to withdraw their tender for any unit of a division before the opening of tenders for that division, provided that, upon opening the remaining tenders, there is at least one valid and complete tender available for consideration for that specific unit. In this particular case, as there were no other tenders received, the petitioner’s tender could not be withdrawn.

However, we find it untenable to accept this contention. An individual who makes an offer has the legal right to withdraw their offer or tender before it is officially accepted. The Government, by including such a clause in the tender notice, cannot strip the petitioner of this fundamental right. The fact that the petitioner had indeed applied for the withdrawal of the tender remains undisputed. Consequently, when the tenders were opened, there was effectively no offer from the petitioner. Consequently, there could be no contract, whether implicit or explicit, between the parties.

As a result, this writ petition is allowed, and the demand made against the petitioner is hereby nullified. The parties involved will bear their respective costs. Furthermore, the outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. The petition stands allowed.

 

 

visits

Ask Akash – Case Summary, Knowledge, Rights

Last minute revision :- Indian Penal Code summary 2023 : topper tips to become ranker – Ask Akash

Limitation Act 

Last minute revision :- Family law summary 2023 – topper tips for doing great to get rank – Ask Akash

Important Landmark Cases : Indian Constitution 2023 – Ask Akash

ask akash (@asklegalakash) / X (twitter.com)

Replacement of Criminal laws 2023 :- Home Minister of India Amit Shah introduces bills to replace IPC, CRPC and Evidence Act to control the crime – Ask Akash

https://askakash.com/bcci-vs-cricket-association-of-bihar-summary/

BCCI vs Cricket association of Bihar summary 2015| Important case of the Future of Bihar Cricket |

BCI Exam 2023 | Important provisions and points for crack exam |

IND vs Pak 2023 | Most Important Match | 10 sept

Keshavananda Bharati Vs Union of India (UOI) 1973 | Most Important case of Indian Constitution

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *