SONTOSH KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called upon. Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent HPCL being the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. G. Pegu, learned ASGI, appearing for the respondent No.1. This matter was earlier called upon on 09.05.2017 and on the said date also, none had appeared for the petitioner. In the above circumstance, this Court deems it appropriate that the matter be taken up for its final consideration even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner had participated in a tender process pursuant to a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) dated 22.06.2009 for supply of home grown bamboo by road from and beyond the areas of Boragaon and Parokhowa of Karbi Anglong for the season 2009-2010. In the bidding process, the petitioner was found to be the L1 bidder and accordingly, he was issued with the work order dated 14.08.2009. A statement has been made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition that the petitioner was unilaterally issued with the work order and was asked to return the duplicate copy duly signed by the petitioner within three days. It is also the case of the petitioner that prior to the work order being issued, the petitioner on 10.8.2009 and 18.08.2009 had made representations before the Deputy General Manager (Fiber Development Procurement) about his grievance that in the meantime, there had been an enhancement of the rate of bamboo.

(3.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a direction that the earnest money amounting to Rs.50,000/- deposited for the Boragaon package and Rs.1,00,000/- deposited for the Parokhowa package, total being Rs. 1,50,000/-, be refunded to the petitioner.