Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) THE appellants in L.P.A. No. 521 of 2014 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others v. R.B. Trading Agency & others) were the respondents in the writ petition (civil) No. 4985 of 214 while the appellant in L.P.A. No. 527 of 2014 was the writ petitioner in the said writ petition. Both of them are aggrieved one way or the other by judgment dated 11th November, 2014 rendered by learned Single Judge in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, appellant -Steel Authority of India Ltd. shall be referred to as 'SAIL' hereinafter, while the appellant -R.B. Trading Agency in the connected appeal shall be referred to as the writ petitioner. SAIL is aggrieved against part of the judgment dated 11th November, 2014, whereby learned Single Judge in spite of holding that Clause 7.8 is valid, allowed the writ petition in part and directed the respondents -SAIL to refund the earnest money of Rs. 25 Lakhs deposited by the writ petitioner. The appellant -R.B. Trading Agency is also partly aggrieved by the same impugned judgment, as learned Single Judge refused to quash the letter dated 22nd September, 2014 impugned in the writ petition, whereby the letter of intent issued to the writ petitioner by respondent -SAIL was cancelled. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and are directed against part of the impugned judgment decided against the respective appellants herein, they have been heard together.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the brief facts which are not in controversy and are relevant for arriving at the proper adjudication of the instant appeals are being referred to hereinafter. Pursuant to tender notice dated 13th May, 2014 issued by SAIL for appointment of Handling Contractor at SAIL Warehouse, Bokaro, the writ petitioner participated and was declared L -1. However, the writ petitioner was directed to justify the rates quoted by him. On the request of the writ petitioner, the dates were extended and finally on 22nd August, 2014, he furnished the cost breakup to justify the rates quoted by it. On 22nd August, 2014, a letter of intent was issued by SAIL in favour of the writ petitioner. On the same day another letter was issued directing the writ petitioner to submit Additional Performance Guarantee Bond of Rs. 2,51,66,800/ - and also comply with the other conditions stipulated therein within a period of 30 days. The respondent - SAIL on failure of the petitioner to submit Additional Performance Guarantee Bond cancelled the letter of intent dated 22nd August, 2014 by letter dated 22nd September, 2014 impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner -R.B. Trading Agency with a number of prayers: "(a) For commanding the Respondents - SAIL to consider the justification of the petitioner for the quoted price after affording a reasonable opportunity and proper negotiations with him; (b) For quashing Clause 7.8 contained in the "Instructions to Bidders"; (c) For quashing Clause 1(f) contained in letter dated 22nd August, 2014, whereunder the petitioner had been called to furnish additional performance guarantee bond of Rs. 2,51,66,800/ -; (d) For restraining the concerned respondents - SAIL from forfeiting the earnest money of Rs. 25 Lakhs deposited by the petitioner; (e) For commanding the respondents to hold meaningful and proper negotiations with the petitioner for execution of the contract as well for fixation/determination of the lower limit of the estimated rate as per Clause 7.8 and (f) For commanding the Respondents - SAIL to execute the contract with the petitioner pursuant to the Letter of Intent dated 22nd August, 2014 without imposing any irrational conditions for submitting additional performance guarantee bond."
(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition through Interlocutory Application No. 5353 of 2014, the petitioner was allowed to incorporate the prayer relating to quashing of letter dated 22nd September, 2014, whereby Letter of Intent issued to him, had been cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner had been forfeited. Further prayers for converting the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner as security deposit and for restraining the respondents from floating a fresh tender for the work in question during the pendency of the writ petition were also allowed to be incorporated. Through Interlocutory Application no 5707 of 2014, further prayer to quash the Tender Notice dated 26th October, 2014 for fresh tender of the work in question was also allowed to be challenged by the same order dated 7th November, 2014. Thereafter, the writ petition was heard and finally decided at the admission stage on 11th November, 2014 by the impugned judgment in question, in both the appeals.;