- (1.) Seeking quashing of letter dated 22.09.2014 whereby, the letter of intent dated 22.08.2014 issued to the petitioner has been cancelled and seeking quashing of Clause 7.8 as contained in "Instructions to Bidders", with a further prayer seeking quashing of Clause 1(f) contained in communication dated 22.08.2014, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioner-Agency claiming that in connection to tender notice dated 13.05.2014 for appointment of Handling Contractor at Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) Warehouse, Bokaro, it was declared L-1 vide communication dated 02.03.2014. On 09.08.2014, the petitioner-Agency was directed to justify the rates quoted. However, on the request of the petitioner, the date was extended and finally on 22.08.2014, the petitioner furnished the cost break-up justifying the rates quoted by it. The respondents issued letter of intent dated 22.08.2014 and on the same day another letter was issued directing the petitioner to submit Additional Performance Guarantee Bond of Rs. 2,51,66,800/- (Rupees two crores fifty one lacs sixty six thousand and eight hundred only), though, the entire contract was awarded for Rs. 2,92,20,000/- only.
(3.) Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Agency submitted that the conditions contained in letter dated 22.08.2014 whereby, the respondent-SAIL directed the petitioner-Agency to furnish Additional Performance Guarantee Bond for value of Rs. 2,51,66,800/- is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the rules of nature justice. Challenging the condition contained in Clause 7.8(b) of the instructions, it is submitted that Clause 7.8 (b) is illegal, arbitrary and unguided and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that once it is held that the condition No. 1(f) contained in letter dated 22.08.2014 is illegal, letter dated 22.09.2014 cancelling the LOI issued to the petitioner is liable to be quashed and consequently, the letter dated 26.10.2014 whereby fresh tender was issued for the work under the contract, would also liable to be quashed. Though vide communication dated 27.08.2014, the petitioner-Agency requested the respondent-SAIL to furnish the reasons for demanding Additional Performance Guarantee Bond for Rs. 2,51,66,800/-, no reason was ever disclosed to the petitioner-Agency and in fact, it was also not communicated to the petitioner-Agency that the cost break-up furnished by the petitioner-Agency for justification of the rates quoted by it, has not been accepted by the respondent-SAIL.;