KOTHARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 23. 8. 2005 (Annex. 10) of respondent Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. , (A Rajasthan Government Undertaking) (``riico'' for short), whereby the respondent RIICO forfeited the earnest money/security deposit of Rs. 1,28,000/- given by the petitioner in relation to a contract for laying down of 11 KV LT power line at Special Economic Zone, Boranada, Jodhpur. By the same communication, the respondent RIICO black-listed the petitioner and restrained him from making any further bids for any contract to be awarded by the respondent RIICO. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the last date for submitting the bids in question in pursuance of the notice inviting bids dated 24. 12. 2004 for the aforesaid work was 24. 1. 2005. For the said work, the petitioner submitted his bid on 24. 1. 2005 and he deposited the aforesaid earnest money of Rs. 1,28,000/- with his tender. Clause 13 of special condition of the contract in the tender document provided about the validity of the rates given in the tender in the following terms:-      " 13. The validity of tendered rate will be open for acceptance for works up to four months. Further, the Explanatory Note No. 13, which is also relevant for the present controversy about the validity of the rates is as under:-      " 13. The rates quoted by the contractor will remain in force up to 4 months from the date of tender. " Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first communication, which he received from respondent RIICO was dated 25. 5. 2005, which was received by the petitioner on 28. 5. 2005 awarding him the work in question and giving the period of executing the contract in question between 10. 7. 2005 to 9. 12. 2005. The petitioner conveyed its response to the said communication dated 25. 5. 2005 (Annex. 3) that the petitioner was unable to accept the said work order at the same rate, the period of which according to petitioner expired on 23. 5. 2005 itself and therefore, the petitioner was not bound to undertake and execute the said work order at the same rates, as there was an escalation in the prices during this period and he could not accept the said work order. The petitioner prayed for refund of his earnest money of Rs. 1,28,000/- in the said communication. The respondent RIICO responded back by its communication dated 8. 6. 2005 (Annex. 4) to the effect that since the final bid was opened only on 28. 1. 2005, the rates quoted in the tender would be valid up to 27. 5. 2005 and therefore, the work order accepting his tender issued on 25. 5. 205 was within four months and would bind the petitioner and he was bound to undertake and execute the said work as per the work order. The petitioner again denied the said communication and requested the RIICO to refund back his earnest money. After some exchange of some letters, in this regard, the respondent RIICO vide Annex. 10 dated 23. 8. 2005 forfeited the said security deposit/earnest money of Rs. 1,28,000/- and also black-listed the petitioner for undertaking the contract with the respondent RIICO. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that it was extremely arbitrary and unreasonable on the part of the respondent RIICO to have insisted upon the petitioner to execute the said work order at the rates, which were no more valid on the date of acceptance of the contract on 25. 5. 2005 and therefore, the impugned order was bad in law and arbitrary. On the opposite side, Mr. R. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent RIICO justified the impugned action of the respondent RIICO by submitting that since the technical bids and financial bids were opened by respondent RIICO on different dates namely technical bids on 24. 1. 2005 and financial bids on 28. 1. 2005, the period of four months aforesaid in condition No. 13 of the tender document would make the rates given in the tender by the petitioner valid up to 28. 5. 2005 and therefore, acceptance of tender of the respondent on 25. 5. 2005 was valid and binding on the petitioner. With the help of the record of the case made available to him by RIICO, Mr. Mehta also submitted that there was some complaint against the petitioner, which is alleged to have been made on 3. 3. 2005, which necessitated an enquiry into the tender documents of the petitioner and such an enquiry could be completed only on 23. 4. 2005 and thereafter, the work order could be issued to the petitioner only on 25. 5. 2005. He accordingly, tried to justify the impugned order including the action of black-listing of the petitioner as he did not undertake and execute the work in question despite communication dated 25. 5. 205.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The question, which arises for consideration by this Court is as to what is the validity period of the rates quoted by the petitioner for undertaking the work in question, if awarded by the respondent to him, in the terms of Clause 13 of the tender document quoted above. Clause 13 of the tender document in the special conditions very clearly stipulates that the validity of tender rate will be open for acceptance for works up to four months. Explanatory Note No. 13 further explains that the rates quoted by the contractor will remain in force up to four months from the date of tender. This four months' period is the expected period of undertaking and executing the contract question and is not the period given for accepting the offer of the bidders like the petitioner. The expanse of the word `validity of tender rates' can be more harmohiously read with the period of execution of contract itself rather than the period given for accepting the offer itself. The notice inviting tender itself made it clear that technical bids will be opened at 4. 00 pm on same day on 24. 1. 2005 and technical bids on 28. 1. 2005 in the presence of interested bidders. Thus, formal acceptance of offer should have followed immediately thereafter and not waited for fag end of four months. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent RIICO that this period of four months was for acceptance of the offer of the petitioner and therefore, such acceptance on 25. 5. 2005 would bind the petitioner with the contract, in the opinion of this Court, files in the face of the terms of Clause 13 quoted above. Since no separate date before which such tenders were to be finalized and acceptance ought to be communicated to the successful bidder, it ought to have been done as quickly as possible and with reasonable expedition within a reasonable period after 28. 1. 2005. Though, no reasons for huge time taken by the respondent RIICO approximately four months in accepting the offer of the petitioner at the fag end of four months has been given in the reply of the respondent RIICO, the submission made at the bar with the help of the record namely that there was a complaint against the petitioner and an enquiry into that complaint took some time and it was concluded on 23. 4. 2005 and only thereafter, the work order could be issued on 25. 5. 2005, also does not impress this Court at all. Where the validity period of execution of works order under the contract itself was four months, one fails to understand, how the decision making process of finalizing the contract itself could take the entire period of four months. Admittedly, the technical bids and financial bids were opened and considered by the respondent RIICO on 24. 1. 2005 and 28. 1. 2005 respectively and acceptance of offer was conveyed to the petitioner on 25. 5. 2005 vide Annex. 2, which was received by the petitioner on 28. 5. 2005. Thus, no binding contract can be said to have come into existence on 25. 5. 2005. There appears to be no reason after 28. 1. 2005 to have just waited and not finalizing the contract for all this period of four months upto 25. 5. 2005. The alleged complaint itself was received much after 28. 1. 2005 on 3. 3. 2005. An enquiry into that was also admittedly concluded on 23. 4. 2005. The nature of the complaint and enquiry report were not made part of the reply of the respondent nor it was dilated upon during the course of arguments. It took one month for respondent RIICO to issue the work order in question on 25. 5. 2005 even after 23. 4. 2005 shows the sheer lethargy, inaction and typical bureaucratic red-tape with the respondent RIICO. The bidders like the petitioner, who give their tenders and offers for execution of works contract by the public bodies like the respondent RIICO cannot be compelled to abide by the rates for the work to be undertaken and executed so long and much after the expiry of period of four months, when they submitted their tender documents. In the present case, the tender documents were submitted on 24. 1. 2005 and the expected period of completion of work itself is said to be five months, would end at around May/june, 2005, issuing the acceptance of tender and binding down the petitioner to undertake and complete the work in question between 10. 7. 2005 to 9. 12. 2005 is clearly against the terms of the tender documents No. 13 and Explanatory Note No. 13 quoted above. Where time is essence of the contract as in the present case, it does not brook any delay in accepting the offer itself until towards the fag end of the period of the work itself. The learned counsel for the respondent RIICO also could not point out any term for escalation of rates in the tender documents under which the petitioner could seek a remedy for executing the said works contract at the higher prices. ;