SURESH GOYAL Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure P -9) whereby the letter of intent for chemist shop No. 4, Block -D, Government Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh was cancelled and the earnest money amounting to Rs.5,50,000/ -was forfeited. The additional prayer made in the writ petition is also for revocation of the order of cancellation of letter of intent and allow the petitioner to complete the formalities to operate from the said shop and in the alternative, writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the earnest money. The motion Bench, while issuing notice of motion, restricted the relief for the refund of the earnest money of the petitioner or his consideration in the fresh tender. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued in the newspaper in October, 2011 inviting sealed tenders for licensing out chemist shop No. 4, Block -D, Government Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh and tenders were to be submitted on or before 04.11.2011 by 1 p.m. and were to be opened at 3.30 p.m. The petitioner, being fully eligible, had applied along with all requisite documents including the earnest money deposit of Rs.5,50,000/ - by way of fixed deposit receipt for the tender which comprised of two parts, the technical bid and the price bid. The tenders were opened on 04.11.2011 and there were only 6 tenders for the said shop and only the bid of 2 tenderers were found to be in order. The respondents, instead of opening the price bid out of the result of the technical bid, declared that the ineligible tenderers would also be called for completing certain shortcomings. It was further alleged that the tenderers who were not eligible were called to complete the short -comings and letters dated 17.11.2011 were issued to them wherein affidavit regarding non -blacklisting and copy of service tax number was asked from those applicants. The said applicants also challenged, by way of CWP No. 22547 of 2011, the rejection of their bids on the ground that the pre -condition of service tax number was not of the tenderers but of the Administrator which was the service provider.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the abovesaid writ petition, the respondents had opened the price bid and the petitioner was the highest bidder offering lease money @ Rs.16,31,111/ -per month. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.11.2011 with the direction that there was no obligation for the chemist to be registered with the service tax authority and the Committee was right in proposing to have service tax registration after the finalisation of the bids from the successful bidder and a direction was issued that since the non -leasing of the shops was causing great inconvenience to the public, the financial bid of the petitioners therein should be opened and processed in accordance with law. The petitioner had also been represented in the said writ petition by his counsel. The price bids for shop No. 1 were accordingly opened on 20.11.2011 along with price bids of shop No. 4. However, the proceedings were not finalized, though the bidders for shop No. 1 were issued letter of intent by sending special messenger at Samalkha and therefore, the petitioner asked for refund of earnest money on 13.01.2012 which was received by the respondents on 14.01.2012. In spite of the said request, the respondents did not issue the letter of intent to him and instead, cancelled his letter of intent in view of his letter dated 13.01.2012 and forfeited the earnest money. The petitioner, thereafter, on 14.02.2012, represented that he had been visiting the office everyday for issuance of letter of intent and the same had not been issued and instead of issuing the same, it had been cancelled. He, accordingly, prayed for reviving the letter of intent and to complete the necessary formalities or in the alternative, for refund of the earnest money. The petitioner also placed reliance upon his medical condition that he was suffering from strain and taking treatment and has approached this Court against the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents whereby it again sought to re -tender the said shop and invite tenders for 22.02.2012.

(3.) THE action of the respondents was sought to be justified by filing short reply taking the plea that the letter of intent was issued on 14.01.2012 and the petitioner was informed telephonically at 11 a.m. to collect the letter of intent personally and the petitioner, instead of receiving the letter of intent, had sent e.mail at 1.02 p.m. that he wanted the refund of his earnest money. It was, accordingly, averred that the letter dated 14.01.2012 whereby the letter of intent had been issued had been given to the Postman on 18.01.2012 and was received back with the remarks that the door was locked and the letter was again sent for delivery on 19.01.2012 and was received back with the same remarks. The letter had remained with the postal authorities till 24.01.2012 and was sent on 24.01.2012 and was received back by the authorities undelivered. Accordingly, it was pleaded that as per Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the tender documents and Clause 8 of the general instructions to the tender had been violated and the respondents had to float fresh tender for 27.02.2012 and the letter of intent was, therefore, offered to S.P. Medicos who was the highest bidder.