ARUN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order/letter dtd. 10/9/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby Earnest Money Deposit (for short, "EMD") amount of Rs.2,38,400.00 deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited.

(2.) As per pleadings of the petitioner, on 12/11/2017 respondents had invited online tender at an estimated cost of Rs.4,76,60,765.00 for construction of Diversion Weir and Earth Work of L.B.C. from RD.O. to 1530 M and R.B.C. from RD.O. to 450M including 14 numbers structures of Dabardand Diversion Scheme. The last date for submission of tender was 21/12/2017. As per Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), the tender was to be submitted in three parts-ABC. Envelope "A" was to contain valid registration, valid solvency certificate, Valid Bid Security (Earnest Money), affidavit, etc. Envelope "B" was to contain eligibility document for award of contract, the income tax returns, etc whereas Envelope "C" was to contain price-bid in the prescribed format.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his tender online on 15/12/2017. Price-Bid was to be opened on 5/1/2018 but opened only on 13/3/2018 and when the said price-bid was opened on 13/3/2018, he came to know about the fact that by mistake, he has quoted his rate as "Zero" in the price-bid, therefore, immediately on the same day he wrote a letter (Annexure P-4) to the respondents stating that he did not quote any rate, instead he has quoted "Zero" by mistake in the column prescribed for quoting the rate. Despite that, the petitioner was declared L-1 bidder and vide letter dtd. 12/4/2018 (Annexure P-6), he was asked by respondents to deposit original documents as per Clause 2.1.5 of tender document, which, the petitioner handed over to them. Since, the respondents did not send a letter to the petitioner asking him to enter into contract agreement before expiry of valid period of the tender, therefore, the petitioner wrote a letter on 25/6/2018 (Annexure P-7) stating that period of tender was over on 5/5/2018, hence, EMD money be refunded to him. He again wrote a letter on 20/8/2018 (Annexure P-8) for the same purpose, but instead of refunding the EMD amount, respondents had informed him vide letter dtd. 10/9/2018 [obtained under RTI on 21/2/2019] that the EMD amount has been forfeited, hence, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition challenging therein that alleged forfeiture of EMD amount was against the terms and conditions of the NIT, as the petitioner did not quote any amount in the Price-Bid by mistake, therefore, he could not be declared as L-1 bidder by the respondents and no contract has been awarded to the petitioner, hence, forfeiting of EMD amount is not in accordance with law.