B.A.L.L.B. (HONS.

) /SECOND SEMESTER
LAW OF CONTRACT (2020-2021)
RESEARCH TOPIC : RAJENDRAKUMAR VERMA V/S STATE OF M.P.

RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA ( PLANTIFF)

V/S
STATE OF M.P. ( DEFENDANT )

(FROM THE SIDE OF DEFENDANT )

Submitted To:
Dr.MahasewtaSenGupta
Submitted By : Anushka Tripathi
 Rajendra Kumar Verma (Plaintiff)
Versus
State Of M.P. (Defendant)

FACTS OF THE CASE: -

 The Respondents (State of M.P.) put an advertisement for receiving tender for the

sale of tendu leaves from the unit No. 7 . Budni

 The petitioner (Rajendra Kumar Verma) submitted his tender RS.38.25p per

standard bag ( in pursuance of tender notice no.1972 -x. 69 dated 25 -03-1969

And deposited some amount as security

Under the tender , condition No. 10(b)(i) states that :

“ a tenderer may be allowed to withdraw his tender of any unit of a division begore the

commencement of the opening the remaining tenders ,there should be at least one valid

tender complete I all respects available for consideration for that particular unit”.

 The petitioner , before the opening of tenders ( which was to be opend on 9 th

April 1969 ) , made an application to the respondent for resiling from the

tender and requested that since he has withdrawan his tender . it may not be

opened at all

 The tender was , however ,opened and was accepted by the government as

petioner’s tender was the only tender submitted for that unit
  The government , later sold the leaves to someone else at loss and filled a suit

against the petioenr for the recovery of loss of rs 24,846.120 incurred by them

due to non- performance of purchasers agreement

Then petitioner then filled a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india

challenging the recovery being made against him

 QUESTION A

A. ISSUE

“Whether a condition in tender notice can refrain the offeror from withdrawing his
offer before it was accepted”

B. Rules Applicable and analysis

I. Terms and conditions

1. It was been clearly mentioned in the condition No. 10(b)(1) a tenderer

cannot withdraw his tender , even before the opening unless there is at
least one valid tender complete in all respects available for consideration
for that particular unit , since there was no other tendre , the tender given
by the petitioner could not be withdrawn there .

2. under Section 12 of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam

of 1964 and consequently, the terms thereof should be treated as law on
the subject and enforceable as such. We are unable to agree with this
contention. No rules have been framed for the disposal of the tendu leaves.
Section 12 of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam of
1964 only authorises the Government to dispose of Tendu leaves as it
considered proper. The terms given in the tender notice are merely
executive directions laid down for the purposes of receiving offers. From a
perusal of the tender notice, it is clear that a tender notice cannot have the
status of law and could not be enforced as such.

3. The Indian  Contract Act lays out the rules of revocation of an offer in
Section 5. It says the offer may be revoked any time before the
communication of the acceptance is complete against the proposer/offeror.
Once the acceptance is communicated to the proposer, revocation of the
offer is now not possible
II. Question of Applicability of Section 12 of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar
Viniyaman) Adhiniyam of 1964

4. Section 12 of the(Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam of 1964

 Section 12 of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam of 1964 only

authorises the Government to dispose of Tendu leaves as it considered proper.

The terms given in the tender notice are merely executive directions laid down

for the purposes of receiving offers. From a perusal of the tender notice, it is clear

that a tender notice cannot have the status of law and could not be enforced as

such.
 CONCLUSION

The plantiff is liable to pay the recovery amount of  Rs. 24,846.12 p. on the
allegation that the Tendu leaves of the unit were sold to somebody else later .