D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants (original respondent No.1) against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015 dated 25.08.2015.
(2.) The petition was preferred by respondent No.1 mainly for the reasons that contract was terminated and the earnest money at Rs.64,908/was forfeited in terms of Clause 15(b) notice inviting tender. The learned Single Judge has observed in para 12 that as the fresh notice inviting tender has already been issued and work has been allotted to another lowest No.1, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, the earnest money has been ordered to be refunded as Clause No.15(b) of NIT is not attracted and hence being aggrieved by this order the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent No.1.
(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that e-tender notice was issued bearing e-tender notice No.9/2014-15 for electrical maintenance work for Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI) for one year at estimated cost of Rs.64,90,716/.;