CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE A.P. SINGH, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES RESIDENT OF SECTOR III/D, QR. NO. 813, BOKARO STEEL CITY, BOKARO, P.O. AND P.S. Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. (A SUBSIDIARY OF COAL INDIA LTD.), A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DARBHANGA HOUSE, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. KOTWALI, DIST RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st Sept., 2014 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2014, whereby the petition preferred by the original petitioner (present appellant) was dismissed and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant made application in pursuance of the E-tender No. GM (CMC)/ Piparwar/2014/110 dated 31st Jan., 2014 for loading of washed coal/raw coal from sliding no.01 and 02 of Bacra Spur Siding for 36 months. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for this appellant that only error committed by this appellant is that while supplying facts along with the bid documents this appellant has entered "0" (Zero) in the column of work experience, certificate number and date in the bid document. In fact, this appellant has no certificate of the work experience and intention was to furnish information to that effect but instead of writing the word "Nil", "0" (Zero) has been written inadvertently. It was also a condition as per the Notice Inviting Tender that the lowest bidder was required to produce the documents supporting his work experience and therefore, when it was found out that this appellant has no experience certificate, the Earnest Money worth Rs.4,86,300.00 was forfeited and this appellant has been blacklisted for a period of one year running from 28th May, 2014 to 27th May, 2015. This period is already over and hence this matter is mainly for the earnest money which have been forfeited by the respondents. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in fact, in the column of work experience, certificate number and date of the bid document "0" has been written instead of "Nil" inadvertently and only intention was to furnish information that the appellant has no experience certificate. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2014. In fact, due to this small error on the part of the appellant, the respondents have not incurred any loss and hence, the Earnest Money should have been refunded.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another reported in (2015) 4 SCC 136 , Para 42, 43 and 43.1 and in view of this decision, if no loss has been caused to the respondents, the earnest money cannot be forfeited and hence, the aforesaid Earnest Money forfeited by the respondents may kindly be ordered to be refunded. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the Respondents