M VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule nisi, Mr.K.Sririivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel took notice for the respondent-Company. Writ Petition was heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is a contractor and being aggrieved by the action of therespondent-Company in insisting that the petitioner should deposit earnest money deposit (E.M.D.) by way of Demand Draft in order to participate in the tender proceeding to awards the proposed work contract, he has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the aforementioned action of the respondent-Company is arbitrary, capricious, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, for a consequential direction to the respondent-Company to accept fixed deposit receipts or bank guarantee as E.M.D. for the tender notification C.P.R.O./50/KCM/98/45.

(3.) Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner wouldstrenuously contend that the insistence of the respondent-Company that the E.M.D. should be deposited by way of Demand Draft only, is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.