M.M. VARGHESE Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to refund the Earnest Money Deposit amounts to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, furnished by him along with the tenders submitted.

(2.) THE respondents have mainly rejected the request by pointing out that the withdrawal of tenders as well as certain other factors will result in forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit.

(3.) BY the said process, he had remitted Rs.15 lakhs as Earnest Money Deposit for the five tenders. Ext.P2 is produced by the petitioner to show that the third respondent recommended for pre qualification of the tenders submitted by the petitioner in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Cochin Steel, in respect of Tender No.03/2011-2012 as well as Tender Nos.04 and 05 submitted in his personal capacity. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 letter requesting to return the Earnest Money Deposit of the two invalid tenders. After coming to know that he was not pre qualified, two letters were submitted as Exts.P4 and P5 to return the Earnest Money Deposit covering all the five tenders. An amount of Rs.3 lakhs was returned as per Ext.P6 in respect of Tender No.03/2011-2012 submitted in the name of Ms. Cochin Steel. Again, the petitioner requested to refund the Earnest Money Deposits in respect of the other four tenders by Ext.P7. Exts.P8 and P9 are copies of the proceedings of the second respondent directing to take steps to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit. These are followed by Exts.P11 to P14 letters explaining their stand also.