IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 161 of 2000 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/08/1999 in WP NO : 26079 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Sujatha Enterprises, Tirupathi rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. T.Vyjayanthimala, by her GPA T.Viswanadhamchetty. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 2 Marketing Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Hare Krishna Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.VENKATARAMANA Standing Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Adinarayana Raju The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA { } THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANADHAN WRIT APPEAL No.161 of 2000 JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T.Meena Kumari): This Writ Appeal has been directed against the orders dated 20-08-1999, passed in W.P.No.26079 of 1998, which was filed by the appellant herein seeking to refund the amount of Rs.10,86,328/- with interest at Rs.24% per annum from 28-06-1998, paid towards earnest money deposit and security deposit with regard to the supply of cashew splits, by declaring the action of the respondents in accepting the tender rate quoted by the appellant for supply of cashew splits at Rs.188/- per k.g. for a quantity of 180 M.Ts., after expiry of 60 days validity period while claiming the right to forfeit the earnest money deposit, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he is one of the tenderers for supply of 180 M.Ts. at Rs.188/- per k.g. of cashew nuts and has deposited an amount of Rs.10,86,328/-. The opening of tenders took place on 30-04-1998 and that as per condition No.7 of the tender conditions, the acceptance of tender shall be within a period of 60 days from the date of opening the tender. However, there is no acceptance by the competent authority, but an order was passed in Rlc.No.M1/252/Mrkt./98, dated 15-05-1998, stating that the rate was accepted for supply of 20 MTs. only, but not for the total 180 MTs. Further, since there was no acceptance from the respondents- authorities between the period from 30-04-1998 and 28-06-1998, the tender accepting authority is not competent to exercise the power of acceptance or confirmation after the expiry of validity period. Surprisingly, on 29-06-1998, after expiry of period of 60 days, the 2nd respondent-Marketing Officer, issued proceedings dated 29-06-1998 accepting the appellant’s tender. Therefore, the question of giving delivery schedule does not arise and that the respondents are not entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposit of the appellant. 3. Even though it is the contention of the appellant that the period of 60 days had expired by 28-06-1998, but the respondents- Devasthanams have stated that the period of 60 days shall be computed from 20-05-1998 i.e., from the date of appellant agreeing to supply the quantity of 180 M.Ts. @ Rs.188/- per k.g., through his letter, after private negotiations took place between the appellant and the respondents. But since the appellant could not stand upon his letter, dated 02-05-1998, the respondents-Devasthanams suffered nearly a loss of Rs.88.00 lakhs in purchasing cashew nuts from outside and under the above circumstances, the said amount has been forfeited from the earnest money deposit of the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the findings of the learned single Judge that disputed questions of fact are involved and that the commencement of the period of acceptance from the date of opening of tenders cannot be read in isolation and that the acceptance of the tender i.e., as 29-06-1998 can be said to be within the period of 60 days, counting the limitation from 03-05-1998, cannot be sustained. 5. It has to be seen from the record that the opening of the tenders took place on 30-04-1998 as per the terms and conditions of the tenders. Negotiations were taken place. Pursuant to which on 02- 05-1998, the appellant addressed a letter stating that he accepted for supply of 180 MTs. of cashew nuts, at the original bid rate. Therefore, the limitation starts from 02-05-1998 and not from 30-04- 1998 as alleged by the appellant. If 60 days period is counted from 02-05-2008, then the letter of acceptance dated 29-06-2008 is well within the period of limitation of 60 days. 6. Under the above circumstances, it has to be observed that the petitioner had failed to supply the material within the time specified and therefore the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We cannot find any fault with the action of the respondents-Devasthanams in forfeiting the earnest money deposit of Rs.10,86,328/-. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference from this Court and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 8. However, the appellant is at liberty to make an appropriate representation before the respondents-Devasthanams for refund of the money deposited etc. and the respondents-Devasthanams shall consider the same in accordance with law. _______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ______________________________ June 10, 2008 , JUSTICE RAMESH RAGANADHAN Kvr