SITA RAM AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The question which falls for determination in this writ application is whether the respondents can accept the offer of the petitioner after they have come to know of the revocation of the offer made by the petitioners and the consequential question is whether the petitioners can be penalised by way of forfeiture of their security deposit as a consequence of acceptance of their revoked offer.

(2.) The aforesaid questions arise in the facts of this case which are briefly narrated as follows :- Petitioner No. 1 is a Proprietorship firm of which Sitaram Agrawal is the sole proprietor and petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1 and looks after the business of petitioner No. 1. Pursuant to the seizure made by the Custom authorities of certain goods and after the said goods Vested in the Central Government, tenders were invited by the Custom authorities for selling those goods. On or about 16th July, 1993 a notice inviting such tenders was published by the Collector of Customs (Disposal). Indo Nepal Board, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna in the Hindi edition of 'Hindustan' Patna dated 21st July, 1993. The said tender was in respect of various goods lying at different Divisions of the Customs Department including Muzaffarpur Division and Motihari (Raxaul) Division. The last date for submitting tenders and for the deposit of earnest mony was 29th July, 1993. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioners submitted tenders for Taj Mixed Dalchini and Plaster of Paris lying at Muzaffarpur Division of the Customs Department and in terms of Clause 4 of the tender notice, the petitioners also deposited the required earnest money namely Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 2,5000/- at the Customs Headquarters at Patna. The petitioners also submitted tender for Nepali Katha for which earnest money of Rs. 65,000/- was also deposited. The said Katha was lying at Mothari (Raxaul) Division of the Customs Department. The tenders submitted by the petitioners were found to be in order.

(3.) The petitioners' case is that as the respondents were delaying the finalisation of the tenders and the goods meant for being sold were of perishable nature and must have been in seizded condition for quite some time, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Collector, Customs (Disposal) Patna under registered post on 16th September, 1993 that as over 50 days have elapsed without finalisation of the tenders, the petitioners withdraw their tenders and requested the authorities to refund their earnest money. After writing the said letter on 16th September, 1993, the petitioners sent two reminders dated 29th September, 1993 and 12th October, 1993, clearly stating therein that the petitioners are withdrawing their tenders and requested for refund of the earnest money. Thereafter the petitioners were surprised to find to letters both dated 21st October, 1993 informing the petitioners that their tenders for Taj Mixed Cinnamon and Plaster of Paris which were lying at the Muzaffarpur Division of the respondents have been accepted and the petitioners were directed to deposit the entire amount after adjusting the security money within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter. Thereafter the petitioners received another letter dated 16th March, 1994 from respondent no. 4 the Assistant Collector - of Customs (Preventive) Division Muzaffarpur to the effect that on the petitioner's failure to lift Plaster of Paris and Taj mixed Cinnamon, their secutity deposit of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 16,500/- stood forfeited. It may be further stated that as far as the petitioners' offer for Katha, clove and Jaifal which were lying at Motihari (Raxaul) Division, the petitioners did not receive any acceptance of the said offer from the respondents.