STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. BHOWMIK AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the Judgment and decree dated 29-4-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Money Appeal No. 01/2002 affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20- 9-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Money Suit No. 10/1999 decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as fallows : The respondent is a registered Partnership Firm in which Shri Tapan Kumar Bhowmik is one of the partners. The business of the partnership firm was to execute contract and also to carry materials of various departments of the State from one place to another. By a Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT) dated 27-2-1998, the Food & Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Tripura had invited tender for carrying food grains and edible oils from Dharmanagar Godown to Manu Crossing Godown for the year 1998-99. In response to the said NIT, the respondent submitted a tender against Job No. 6 of the NIT for carrying food grains and quoted his rate at the rate of Rs. 1595P per quintal and also submitted his tender on 18-3-1998. Along with his tender the respondent also deposited Rs. 12,500/- by way of S.T.D.R. as earnest money. It is the case of the respondent that it was obligatory oh the part of the petitioner, i.e., the State of Tripura, to inform him within 90 (ninety) days from the date of opening of the tender about acceptance of the same. On 24-7-1998, the respondent requested the Department to refund the earnest money as early as possible for failing to accept his tender within the reasonable period of time. He also informed the Department that he had revoked his tender and requested that the earnest money be refunded to him within seven days along with 18% interest per annum. By his letter dated 21-8-1998, the respondent informed the Department that the tender submitted by him on 18-3-1998 should be treated as cancelled and that the earnest money be refunded as stated above. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Food & Civil Supplies Department however, by his letter dated 22-8-1998 informed the respondent that his tender had already been accepted and that he should deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- as a security deposit within 1-9-1998 and the said letter was received by the respondent on 7-9-1998. The respondent again by the letter dated 26-10-1998 had stated that since he has already revoked the tender, the earnest money should be refunded to him along with interest @ 18% per annum. It transpires that the Joint Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department thereafter issued a show cause notice on 31 -10-1998 requring the respondent to show cause as to why the contract should not be cancelled and also as to why the earnest money should not be forfeited by the State. The respondent submitted his reply to the show cause on 18- 11-1998 and also issued a notice under Section 80 of the CPC on 16-3-1999 to the petitioner to refund the earnest money with interest. The respondent also mentioned therein that though he was the lowest tenderer, the petitioner executed the said contract for carrying food grains through some other agencies at the rate of Rs. 16.59P per quintal.