A.K. Patnaik, J. - (1.) This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment dated 15.10.2008 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 14998 of 2004.
(2.) The relevant facts very briefly are that the petitioner is a private limited company carrying on inter alia the business of construction. In April 2004, respondent No. 2 published a notice inviting tenders for construction of married accommodation at Shankar Vihar-II, Pocket, Delhi Cantonment, at an estimated cost of Rs. 40 crores (for short "the Notice"). Clause 6 of the Notice stipulated that the tenderer shall furnish earnest money of Rs. 40 lacs in the form of FDR from a nationalized bank drawn in favour of the Director General, Married Accommodation Project, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. Clause 6 also stipulated that if the firm revokes its offer during the validity period, the earnest money furnished by the firm shall be forfeited. In response to the Notice, the petitioner submitted its offer along with earnest money of Rs. 40 lacs. When the tenders were opened on 05.05.2004, the offer of the petitioner was found to be the lowest at Rs. 32 crores for the work. On 06.05.2004, however, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent No. 2 making a correction of a figure in its tender to read as Rs. 32,76,000/- instead of Rs. 23,76,000/-. As a result of this correction, the offer of the petitioner for the work increased from Rs. 32 crores to Rs. 41 crores. Respondent No. 2 treated this correction made by the petitioner in its tender as revocation of its offer and forfeited the earnest money of Rs. 40 lacs furnished by the petitioner.
(3.) Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 14998 of 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Delhi, but by the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition after holding that the correction of the bid made by the petitioner amounted to revocation of its original offer and hence the respondent No. 2 was entitled to forfeit the earnest money furnished by the petitioner in terms of Clause 6 of the Notice.;