ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has mainly prayed for a direction against the respondents to refund his earnest money of Rs. 8,66,000/- deposited as security in the form of Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) along with interest. On 20-7-2012 respondent Public Works Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh invited tenders from interested persons for the construction of Baxwaha-Nehagir-Dalpatpur Road. Respondent No. 2 is the Engineer-in-Chief whereas respondent No. 3 is the Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. As required under the terms and conditions of the tender, all the tenderers including the petitioner deposited the earnest money. The petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs. 8,66,000/- on 9-8-2012 in the form of Term Deposit Receipt in favour of respondent No. 3. Also under the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner and other tenderers agreed to keep their offer open up to 120 days from the specified deadline of receipt of tenders. They even agreed that the full value of earnest money would be forfeited in the event of their withdrawing the offer before the expiry of the period of validity of offer. The deadline for receiving the tender was 12-8-2012 and, therefore, the validity period of offer of 120 days was up to 11-12-2012. But respondent No. 3 accepted the petitioner's tender only on 27-12-2012 vide Annexure P4 i.e. after the expiry of the validity period of offer of 120 days. The petitioner in reply to the letter of acceptance informed respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P5 dated 4-1-2013 that he was not interested in the work because his offer lapsed after the expiry of validity period of 120 days and, therefore, his earnest money be refunded. Respondent No. 3 instead, not only forfeited the petitioner's earnest money but also prohibited him to tender for the same work for which fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued. It is in this background the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their return have stated that since the petitioner failed to execute the agreement as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the action taken against him was just and proper. In support of the action taken, they have also relied upon condition Nos. 4.7, 4.7.1 and 8.1.1 of the tender.

(3.) Conditions Nos. 4.7, 4.7.1 and 8.1.1 of the tender read as under: