RANJIT KUMAR SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the earnest money deposited by the petitioner for bidding the contract for carriage of food grain arid other essential commodities from FCI's different depots at Guwahati to Agartala in respect of the Notice Inviting Tender (in short NIT) dated 9-2-95 can be withdrawn by him after withdrawing his bid before acceptance of his tender by the respondent.

(2.) The controversy arose out on the following facts and circumstances :- By the aforesaid NIT, tenders were invited for transportation of food grain and other essential commodities. The petitioner, whp is a transport Contractor, submitted his tender on 10-3-1995. The transportation work was to be carried out for the period commencing from April, 1995 to March, 1996. Being the lowest tenderer, the petitioner expected that he would be awarded the contract without any delay. While submitting his tender, he also deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit vide his letter dated 12-10-1995 by way of earnest money. When his tender was not accepted even after the lapse of seven months from the date of opening of the tender, the petitioner vide his letter dated 19-12-1995 informed the respondent about his inability to execute the work due to inordinate delay in accepting his tender and requested them to release the earnest money deposited by him. It would appear that in response to that letter, the Food and Civil Supplies Department communicated the letter of acceptance and requested him to execute a deed of agreement after depositing the security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by 16-1-1996 positively. The petitioner by his letter dated 12-1-1996 replied that he would not be in a position to execute the work after the lapse of 10 long months, especially when the transportation work was to be done for the period of 1995-96. He also requested therein that the earnest money be refunded to him immediately. Instead of refunding the earnest money, the respondents apparently issued the work order dated 12-1-1996 for transportation of 500 MT S.F. Rice from FCI Depot, Guwahati to Central Store, A.D. Nagar, Agartala. The petitioner promptly sent his letter dated 12-1-1996 intimating the respondent of his inability to execute the work order issued belatedly. The respondents apparently retaliated by forfeiting the earnest money and terminated the tender of the petitioner. A number of representations were subsequently made by the petitioner to the respondents for refund of the earnest money, which did not evoke any positive response. This led him to file this writ petition.

(3.) The respondents in opposing the writ petition filed their counter-affidavit. The stands taken by the respondents as emerged from the counter-affidavit are that the petitioners in terms of Clause 8 of the NIT was prohibited from surrendering his rates pending finalisation of the tender, but when he refused to undertake the transportation work Which amounted to surrendering his rates before finalisation of the tender, the Department was well within its power to forfeit the earnest money. By refusing to lift the foods grains from Guwahati to Agartala, contend the respondents, the petitioner hampered the public distribution system. The respondents point out that they extended maximum co-operation to the petitioner by treating the security deposit made by him earlier for execution of the previous transportation contract as the security deposit for this transportation contract. It is, therefore, submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has no right to demand refund of the earnest money and the writ petition filed by him for a direction to that effect is devoid of merits, which is liable to be dismissed.