DIGVIJAY CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2010, passed below Exhibit-1, in Regular Civil Suit No.722 of 2002 by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee on tender amount within 15 days from the date of the order.

(2.) THE short facts of this case are that the petitioner is a private company and carries on business as Government approved ?AA? class contractor. THE tenders were invited for the work of double land paver by the respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1. THE petitioner filled in the form and submitted the same. THE tenders were opened on 03.10.2001 and original validity period of offer was upto 13.11.2001. By letter dated 02.11.2011, request was made by respondent No.2 to extend the validity of offer upto 31.12.2001. Accordingly the petitioner by letter dated 12.11.2001 extended the validity of offer upto 31.12.2001. THE respondent No.2 accepted the offer of the petitioner on 29.12.2001 and directed to furnish the security deposit of Rs.2,66,750/- and performance bond of Rs. 5,33,500/-. 2.1. THEreafter by letter dated 14.02.2002 respondent no.2 directed to furnish security deposit failing which Earnest Money deposit will be forfeited and registration of petitioner will be kept in abeyance for three years. By order dated 18.3.2002, the respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that proceedings will be initiated for keeping the registration in abeyance for three years. THEreafter, the petitioner filed R.C.S. No.722 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge(S.D.), Rajkot for declaration and permanent injunction and restraining the respondents from implementing the order dated 18.3.2002. Vide order dated 12.3.2010, passed below Exhibit-1, the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee on tender amount within 15 days from the date of the order. Hence, this petition.

(3.) EVEN if the other prayer regarding keeping the registration in abeyance is concerned, the said relief is not capable of being valued in terms of money.