RAMA MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD Vs. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF STORES SHELL DEPOT INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein had called for tenders for clearance of scrap. THE petitioner has remitted his tender. Since his offer is being highest by proceedings dated 24.5.1994 the second respondent had accepted the offer and requested the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 2,70,400/- towards security deposit on or before 2.6.1994, failing which the E.M.D. amount will be forfeited without any further notice. THE petitioner received the communication of the second respondent dated 24.5.1994 on 26.5.1994 and wrote a letter expressing that it will take minimum 20 days to furnish the bank guarantee after compkdng the formalities and hence requested to withdraw the conditions to remit the security deposit on or before 2.6.1994. THE Deputy Controller of Stores sent communication dated 31.5.1994 stating that the petitioner is granted time upto 6.6.1994 to furnish the bank guarantee and to remit the security deposit and no further extension will be entertained. As the petitioner could not comply with the same under the impugned proceedings, dated 8.6.1994 the respondent has forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit amount of Rs. 50,000/- remitted against the tender.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the said proceedings contending that as per the clause 11 of the tender conditions which was referred by the respondent in his impugned proceedings, the petitioner is entitled for 14 days time to remit the security deposit and furnish bank guarantee after the acceptance of the petitioner's offer by the respondent As no point of time the 14 days time has been granted to the petitioner by the respondent and hence it is not open to the respondents to rely upon the clause 11 of tender conditions and contend that the petitioner did not comply with the condition and hence the E.M.D., amount is liable to be forfeited.

(3.) HEARD both the learned counsel. It could be seen that the respondent had sent the communication dated 24.5.1994 which was received by the petitioner on 26.5.1994 requesting him to remit the amount of Rs. 2,70,400/- towards security deposit The petitioner by his letter dated 27.5.1994 had requested the respondent for 20 days time for the payment of the security deposit and also to complete the formalities such as furnishing the bank guarantee etc., when the petitioner had sought for extension of 20 days time it is for the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pas orders. Without any application of mind, the respondent has sent the communication dated 31.5.1994 extending time by 6.6.1994 so as to comply with the clause 11 of the tender conditions. Had the 14 days time been given at the first instance, the petitioner would have taken some steps to pay the amount as well as to furnish the bank guarantee without approaching the respondents for extension of time. When the respondent had restricted the time by a week naturally, the petitioner had approached the respondent for extension of time and there is nothing wrong for the petitioner to wait for petitioner both to pay the security deposit and to furnish bank guarantee. When the respondent has not granted 14 days time as stipulated under clause 11 of the tender conditions, the rejection order is liable to be set aside. It cannot be contended by the respondents that in piece-meal they have extended the time in all together to a total of 14 days which would place the petitioner totally at the mercy of the respondent. The conduct of the respondents in violating the clause 11 of the tender conditions is contrary to law. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.