Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate refuted the aforesaid and argued that in this case a concluded contract had not come into existence and the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act is being misquoted by the petitioner in this particular case. Learned Government Advocate argues that when the tender notice was issued, offers were received and Ms. Abhimanyu Associates gave an offer of Rs.15,71,549. This offer being highest was to be accepted but due to disqualification of Ms. Abhimanyu Associates, a communication was made vide Annexure P-8 to the petitioner on 20.2.2015 asking him as to whether he is willing to give an offer of Rs.15,71,549/- as given by the highest bidder. It is said that in pursuance to the same, the petitioner also gave offer to the tune of Rs.15,71,549/- and this offer was given by the petitioner, is not an acceptance of the communication made by the respondent. It was only a fresh offer by the petitioner in pursuance of the query made and the tender committee before whom this offer was placed having decided to reject the same and re-tender. There is no concluded contract in the present case, learned counsel submits that the writ court while holding so has not committed any error.