LAWS(CHH)-2013-4-4

H.R.CONSTRUCTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 08, 2013
H.R.Construction Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 21.08.2001 (Annexure P/6) whereunder the tender submitted by the petitioner on joint venture with M/s. Pilcon Engineering, was cancelled and the earnest money deposited against the tender offer, was forfeited by the competent authority.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement for construction of Pile Foundations on Hasdeo river, the petitioner, on a joint venture alongwith M/s. Pilcon Engineering offered his tender for pile foundation, pier and two PSC span of bridge No. 43 on Hasdeo river in connection with construction of 3rd line between Akaltara and Champa Railway Station on S.E. Railway. The tender offered by the petitioner was accepted on 20.05.2001. As per the undertaking (Annexure R/1, page 44 of paper book), wherein it was clearly stated that "I/We also agree to keep this Tender open for acceptance for a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date fixed for opening the same and in default thereof, I/We will be liable for forfeiture of my/our security deposit". It was further accepted by the petitioner that "A sum of Rs. 50,000/- is hereby forwarded as for earnest money. The full value of the earnest money shall stand forfeited without prejudice to any other rights or remedies if, (a) If I/we withdraw my/our offer within the validity of tender, or (b) I/We do not execute the contract document within seven days after receipt of such notice issued by the Railway that such documents are ready or (c) I/We do not commence the work within Ten days after receipt of the orders to that effect". Admittedly, the same was accepted on 20.05.2001.

(3.) CONTENTION of Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent has quoted the lowest rates. Further, the respondents have not suffered any loss and as such, forfeiture of earnest money is illegal, as held by the Supreme Court, in Yogesh Mehta v. Custodian appointed under the Special Courts & Others1.