ITENG ENGINEERING (A DIVISION OF DR. AMIN CONTROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED) Vs. GUJARAT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the communications dated 23/12/2016 and 12/01/2017 addressed by respondent no.1 - Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. seeking encashment of Fixed deposit Receipts dated 07/12/2011 furnished by the petitioner, which the petitioner furnished at the time of submitting the bids against the bid securities.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.1 herein invited the bids in the year 2011-12 vide public Tender Notices for empanelling consultants to provide consultancy services for construction, supervision and inspection of materials for various Water Supply Projects under the Swarnim Gujarat Saurashtra - Kutch bulk water pipeline grid project. The bids were invited under eight different Tender Notices for eight separate packages and under the terms and conditions for each packages, a specified amount towards the Earnest Money Deposit was required to be furnished to respondent no.1 as pre-qualification criteria and so as to enable respondent no.1 to consider the bids of the bidders. The petitioner submitted eight different bids for each eight packages, and therefore, furnished eight separate Fixed Deposit Receipts towards Earnest Money Deposit. On instructions of the petitioner, respondent no.2 - Saraswat Co-opearative Bank arranged for issuance of eight different Fixed Deposit Receipts on 07/12/2011, the particulars of which are as below; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_112_LAWS(GJH)6_2018_1.html</FRM>

(3.) In response to the notice issued by this Court, Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.1 opposing the present Special Civil Application and considering the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that with respect to the bid submitted by the petitioner for Dudhrej - Navagam project, which was accepted and according to respondent no.1 the petitioner misrepresented and got the work order in its favour and looking to the said conduct, respondent no.1 has communicated to respondent no.2 - Saraswat Co-operative Bank to encash the aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipts (eight in numbers), which may be considered by way of penalty.