JUDGEMENT
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. -
(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5774 of 2014 dated 12th February, 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by the respondent (original petitioner) has been allowed and the appellant -Corporation was directed to refund the earnest money deposit of Rs. 5,80,000/ - with interest, if payable in terms of Corporation's own guidelines, within a period of four weeks and, hence, the original respondent No. 1 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix:
"Tender inviting notice was published by the appellant for two way transportation of foodgrains. The two works were narrated as under: - -
"(a) Two way transportation from Rail Head Chandil to Private Entrepreneur Godown Seraikella and handling work at Rail Head Chandil and,
(b) Two way transportation from Rail Head Dhalbhumgarh to Private Entrepreneur Godown Chakulia and handling work at Rail Head Dhalbhumgarh."
For both the aforesaid contracts, tenders were filled up by respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) with earnest money of Rs. 5,80,000/ - for each of the tender process.
Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was not given first contract because he was not a lowest one.
It further appears from the facts of the case that as second contract, which was transportation from Rail Head Dhalbhumgarh to Private Entrepreneur Godown at Chakulia and handling work at Rail Head Dhalbhumgarh, was given to respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) as per the terms of general inviting notice and he was to deposit security amount of Rs. 12,50,000/ - and two bank guarantees were given by respondent No. 1 each of Rs. 25,00,000/ -.
Time to give security amount as well as bank guarantees were extended up to 11th August, 2014.
Respondent No. 1 was declared as a lowest number one on 18th July, 2014, so far as second contract is concerned.
Respondent No. 1 could not give security amount of Rs. 12,50,000/ - nor two bank guarantees were given as required and, hence, the appellant had forfeited security deposit of Rs. 5,80,000/ - for second contract.
The appellant had also passed an order dated 20th August, 2014 to withhold the security amount for first contract also. This is a bottleneck in the whole matter.
Due to the order dated 20th August, 2014 passed by the appellant (Annexure -1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5774 of 2014 was preferred by respondent No. 1 (original petitioner), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the appellant (original respondent No. 1) has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal."
(3.) Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:
"It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that looking to the terms and conditions, inviting tenders which are annexed at Annexure -2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and as per Clause IX, there is calculation of security deposit and as per Clauses (X)(a) and (X)(b), the appellant was entitled to withhold the amount of security deposit even for first item for which tender was filled up by respondent No. 1, though he was not given contract.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as per Clauses (X)(b) and (XII) and as per Clause 6 of the general information to tenderers, the appellant can withhold the amount of security deposit till the actual loss is ascertained because respondent No. 1 could not give security amount nor two bank guarantees each of Rs. 25,00,000/ -. Now, there shall be re -advertisement and if there is any difference in the amount to be paid by the appellant to another contractor, the said damages or losses will have to be recovered from this respondent No. 1 (original petitioner), looking to aforesaid terms of the tenders. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.