THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18259 of 2009 Date:15.12.2009 Between: M/s. Pattabhirama Poultry Farms Pvt. Ltd., and others. ..Petitioners and The Food Corporation of India and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18259 of 2009 ORDER: The Food Corporation of India, first respondent herein, issued a tender notice dated 17.06.2009 for sale of maize at various go-downs. The petitioners are dealers in maize. They submitted the tenders within the stipulated time. They were informed that their tenders were accepted and that they have to deposit 25% of the bid amount within a period of ten days from the date of receiving intimation. The first petitioner states that it received intimation on 11.08.2009 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 13.08.2009 and that all of them went to the second respondent on 18.08.2009 with demand drafts for the corresponding amount. Their grievance is that the respondents are refusing to receive the amount and denied the award of contract. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the telegrams were issued on 07.08.2009 and that ten days time for making the deposited expired on 17.08.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioners have made the deposit of 25% of the bid amount within the stipulated time. It is not in dispute that the bids are accepted by the respondents. Clause 6 of the tender conditions deals with the method of making security deposit. It reads as under: “6. Security Deposit: On acceptance of the offer, the tenderer would be required to deposit 25% of the cost of stocks intended to be purchased as security money within ten (10) days of the date of communication of acceptance (through post or an electronic media). The earnest money would be adjusted towards security deposit on receipt of request from the successful tenderers.” According to the above, the deposit has to be made within a perid of ten days from the date of communication of acceptance. The respondents, no doubt, dispatched the communication on 07.08.2009 through telegrams. Though the dispatch may connote acceptance, the counting of ten days time can start only when the petitioners received the communication. A clear distinction needs to be maintained between the acceptance of the offer on the part of the respondents on the one hand and commencement of the time to deposit the amount on the other hand. Mere issuance of telegrams does not enable the respondents to count the time unless the telegrams have reached the petitioners. It is stated that though the telegrams were issued and entrusted to B.S.N.L. on 07th, they were not transmitted at all till 10.08.2009, 8th and 9th being holidays. The petitioners responded shortly after they received the communication. The respondents cannot be said to have suffered any detriment. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to receive the payment made by the petitioners and entrust the contract in accordance with the relevant provisions within a period of fifteen days from today. This, however, shall not be treated as precedent for other instances where the amounts were not deposited within time. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th December, 2009 GHN