OMPRAKASH SATYAPAL Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board invited tender for purchase of scrap materials, Lot No. 70 contained 65 M.T. of Pulverizer M.S. Pipe and Bent scrap, Lot No. 76 contained 160 M.T. of Boiler Tube Steel Scrap and Lot No. 117 (1) contained 200 M.T. of Economizer Tube Coil Steel scrap. Petitioner as also respondent No. 3 submitted its tender for Lot No. 117 (1). Petitioner had also submitted tender for Lots No. 70 and 76. Tender of respondent No. 3 has been accepted by telegram dated 7-2-2000. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prays for quashing of the sale order in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of Lots No. 70, 76 and 117 (1).

(2.) It is the assertion of the petitioner that along with its tender petitioner has not deposited 5% of its offered value towards earnest money. In reply to the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner, respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated in Paragraph 6 of the return as follows :-

(3.) Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that according to the terms and conditions of the tender notice, a tenderer was required to deposit 5% of his offered value towards earnest money either in cash or by bank draft and admittedly respondent No. 3 having not deposited the total earnest money, its tender ought to have been rejected. Mr. Vivekanand Awasthy however, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Singhai appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submit that adjustment of the balance amount of Rs. 6,673/- from the amount of respondent No. 3 available with the Board as refundable security deposit; in sum and substance amounts to deposit of part of earnest money by way of cash and hence, it cannot be said that respondent No. 3 has not deposited the full earnest money.