MAHARIA RESURFACING AND CONSTRUCTION P LTD Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND RITES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandemus directing the respondents to abide by the terms and conditions of clause 1 regarding security deposit of the conditions of the contract (G.P.W. Form 9) of the respondent No. 1. It has further been prayed that the respondents be restrained from imposing the condition No. 2.b in the letter dated 12.5.98 issued by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner is a public limited company. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement on behalf of respondent No. 1 which was published in the newspaper 'Indian Express' on 24.4.1997 for inviting tenders for a contract whose approximate costs was Rupees 5.15 crores. In pursuance of the said advertisement published in 'Indian Express' on 24.4.1997 the petitioner No. 1 also submitted his tender which was accepted, being the lowest. This tender was submitted by the petitioner along with the earnest money as directed in the advertisement. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the wirt petition that the petitioner's tender was found to be the lowest amongst the tenders. In paragraph 11 it is alleged that the State Government has approved the terms in respect of the contract to be entered into by Greater Noida. A true copy of the G.P.W. Form 9. which has been approved by the State Government is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is submitted that clause 1 of the conditions of the contract specifically requires that any contractor shall permit Greater Noida to deduct an amount at the rate of 10% of the gross amount of the running account bill on account of security subject to the maximum of rupees five lakhs.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is against the letter dated 12.5.1998 of the respondent No. 2 a copy of which is filed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has been alleged that on receipt of this letter from the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner was required to execute the said contract agreement, since the tender of the petitioner was accepted being the lowest. The petitioner has alleged that paragraph 2.b of the said letter runs contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract of Greater Noida which has been duly approved by the U.P. government and which was regularly being followed by the respondent No. 1 with other contractors. In paragraph 2.b of the said letter it has been povided that the security deposit will be deducted at the rate of 10% of the gross amount of each running account payment till it reaches the amount of 64 lakhs. It is alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the aforesaid clause 2.b of the letter of award dated 12th May 1998 is absolutely arbitrary and is contrary to clause 1 relating to security deposit of the terms and conditions of the contract, namely, G.P.W. Form 9. The petitioner has alleged that since the tender of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent No. 1 the said acceptance is being frustrated by requiring the petitioner to agree unconditionally in respect of paragraph 2.b of the letter of award dated 12th May, 1998 which requires the petitioner to give the security to the extent of rupees sixty four lakhs. The petitioner has alleged that since the tender of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent No. 1 the said acceptance cannot be made subject to the condition 2.b stated in the aforesaid letter dated 12th May, 1998. It is alleged that the said condition is absolutely unreasonable and arbitrary.