In response to an advertisement, the appellant along with the third respondent submitted a tender for running the University canteen at Patiala…… The third respondent’s writ was allowed by the single judge and an appeal was preferred by the writ appellant. Decide.

Question: In response to an advertisement, the appellant along with the third respondent submitted a tender for running the University canteen at Patiala. When tenders were opened, the offer of writ appellant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 33,399 was the highest. The third respondent along with others was invited for negotiations and he enhanced his offer to Rs. 45,999.

The writ appellant did not participate in negotiations and also did not agree to enhance his tender offer. As the third respondent was a defaulter in respect of other University canteens earlier, the University authorities awarded the contract to the writ appellant. It was said that the third respondent was not only in arrears of a large amount of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,49,364 but also dragged the University in several litigations. The third respondent’s writ was allowed by the single judge and an appeal was preferred by the writ appellant. Decide. [Punj. JS 2006]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [In response to an advertisement, the appellant along with the third respondent submitted a tender for running the University canteen at Patiala. When tenders were opened, the offer of writ appellant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 33,399 was the highest. The third respondent along with others was invited for negotiations and he enhanced his offer to Rs. 45,999…... Decide. [Punj. JS 2006]

Answer

The tender for running the University canteen was submitted by the appellant along with the third respondent. On opening tenders, the offer of writ appellant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 33,399 was found to be the highest. But the third respondent along with others was invited for negotiations and he enhanced his offer to Rs. 45,999. The writ appellant did not participate in negotiations and also did not agree to enhance his tender offer.

The third respondent was not the only a defaulter in respect of another university canteen earlier but alleged to have dragged the university into several litigations. University authorities awarded the contract to the writ appellant. The third respondent’s writ challenged awarding the contract to the writ appellant and succeeded. Hence, this appeal filed by the writ appellant.

When the offer of the writ appellant was highest, the same deserved acceptance. University authorities could not invite for any kind of negotiations. By awarding the contract to the writ appellant, though after negotiations, the University authorities didn’t commit any illegality. Therefore, the appeal filed by the writ appellant deserves to be accepted.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X