TRANSSTROY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is qua illegal encashment of its bank guarantee by the respondent. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was in the sum of Rs.5.67 crores. This said bank guarantee was furnished by the petitioner in lieu of bid security, at the stage of filing of the tender. The respondent, evidently, encashed the bank guarantee as it came to the conclusion that the petitioner had filed a "non-responsive" bid.

(2.) The facts, which led to the institution of the instant writ petition are set out hereinafter:-

(3.) Aggrieved by this action of the respondent, the petitioner wrote to the respondent vide its letter dated 25.12.2014. By this letter, the petitioner, inter alia, brought to the notice of the respondent the decision of this Court, which was rendered on 10.3.2011, in the case of: IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India.