UJJAL TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the only grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents should not encash the bank guarantee furnished by the Petitioner as earnest money to the tune of Rs. 5,67,300/- (Rupees five lacs sixty seven thousand three hundred). He submitted that when the Petitioner submitted its tender, there was no objection by the Forest Department, but, later on, by letter dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure 8), it refused to grant permission to Respondent No. 5 for cutting of 82 trees standing over the area of 9.79 hectares of land, over which the work in question, as per the tender, was to be done and, therefore, in the absence of clearance from the Forest Department, the Petitioner cannot proceed in terms of the letter dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure 1) issued by Respondent No. 4. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Rajesh Gupta, 2010 1 SCC 655.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, referring to paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, submitted that more than 7 hectares of land does not bear any tree and, therefore, there is no impediment in commencing the work by the Petitioner. He further submitted that the Petitioner was required to satisfy itself before offering bid about, its responsibility, cost and risk, in terms of Clause 6.1 of instructions to bidders.

(3.) After hearing the parties, in my opinion, the Respondents cannot invoke the bank guarantee and forfeit the earnest money of the Petitioner.