LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-67

DHARMENDRA SINGH TRADERS Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 27, 2011
DHARMENDRA SINGH TRADERS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners' contention is that they were not allowed to submit the tender form on acceptance of 2% earnest money required to be paid as per Para 18 of Schedule 19 of Financial Handbook Vol. V (Part I).

(2.) PETITIONERS' own case is that in the place and instead of 2% earnest money the respondent Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad has claimed 10% earnest money. The petitioners have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Jal Akash v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(7) ADJ 37 (DB), which was followed by various Division Benches of this Court and interim orders were passed. Such writ petitions might be pending till now. Only distinguishable factual aspect available between the referred judgment and the case herein is that no where therein the contractor was required to deposit 10% of the estimated cost as "earnest money" when on the other hand, in this case one of the clauses of the tender speaks about 10% as "Zamanat Dhanrashi" which grammatically seems to be security deposit but not the earnest money. In any event, no argument was advanced by the petitioners showing such distinguishable feature. However, we ourselves have gone through the judgment and relevant provisions of Financial Handbook to come to an appropriate conclusion. Mr. Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has contended that when the petitioners' own case is that 10% earnest money has been directed to be deposited in the place and instead of 2%, as per the condition of the tender form, the aforesaid language of "Zamanat Dhanrashi" seems to be loosely mentioned and are interchangeable in nature. We have gone through other parts of the judgment where differentiation between the earnest money and the security deposit have been made and we followed the same in one of the matters being Writ Petition No. 17030 of 2011 (M/ s Ruhel Khan Builders v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 24th March, 2011.

(3.) THEREFORE, for all practical purposes the following order are required to be passed hereunder: