SADGURU KRIPA ELECTICAL Vs. MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of cancellation of bid and forfeiture of security deposit vide order dtd. 2/2/2017 (Annexure P/8) in the matter of Notice Inviting Tenders dtd. 27/12/2016 (Annexure P/1) and for cancellation of fresh NIT (Annexure P/9).

(2.) On notice, respondents have filed counter affidavit. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for the relief against cancellation of the contract and the fresh NIT (Annexure P/9) and confines his relief to the extent of forfeiture of security deposit.

(3.) The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner had submitted three tenders through e- tendering as electrical contractor for various nature of works defined in the NIT (Annexure P/1). The petitioner was L-1 and at the time of submission of the bid, he had quoted price 26%, 26.01% and 26.04% below SOR (Schedule of Rates). At the time of submission of tender, the petitioner had deposited earnest money in the form of demand draft as per Clause 14 of Sec. II - Instruction to Bidders of the NIT (for short, Instructions). As per Clause 11.2.1 of Sec. III - General Conditions of Contract of NIT (for short, General Conditions), the petitioner had deposited security of 10% in the form of Demand Draft. According to the petitioner, there was no communication from the respondents for deposit of performance security in any particular form, however, the petitioner was prepared to deposit the performance guarantee in the form of Bank Guarantee as contemplated under Clause 11.3.1 of General Conditions. The petitioner was required to deposit the performance guarantee at the time of signing the contract. However, to his surprise, the petitioner's contract was cancelled and earnest money was forfeited giving rise to file the instant writ petition.