- (1.) The prayer made in the instant petition is for quashing order dated 5.11.2011 (P-16) received on 12.11.2011, canceling the contract with respondent No. 1. According to the aforesaid order the prayer of the petitioner for extension of time limit in respect of the period specified in Clause 7 was rejected on the ground that there was no such provision in the Model Tender Form (for brevity, 'MTF'). The basic reason for rejection of the contract was the inability of the petitioner to furnish requisite security deposit by 3.11.2011 i.e. within a period of 15 days of the acceptance of the tender.
(2.) It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that tender was accepted on 19.10.2011 and the period of 15 days was to come to an end on 3.11.2011 (P-6). On account of failure of the petitioner to furnish the requisite security deposit and bank guarantee, the order was passed on 5.11.2011 (P-16).
(3.) Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of rejection suffers from legal infirmity because on account of the defect in the banking operations on 3rd and 4th of November, 2011, the bank guarantee could not be prepared and the benefit of failure of the banking system should be given to the petitioner. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that the order dated 5.11.2011 has been passed in a hurry as the period of 15 days would include 19.10.2011 as well as 3.11.2011, and if so calculated then the period of 15 days would be completed on 5.11.2011. Therefore, the order could not have been passed on 5.11.2011 itself. For the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. An apprehension expressed by Mr. Gupta is that on the basis of clause 7 of the MTF, the respondents may resort to debarring the petitioner for the future to participate in the tender process for a period of three years.;