AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—The respondents herein had called for tenders for clearance of scrap. The petitioner has remitted his tender. Since his
offer is being highest by proceedings dated 24.5.1994 the second respondent had accepted the offer and requested the petitioner to remit a sum of
Rs. 2,70,400/- towards security deposit on or before 2.6.1994, failing which the E.M.D. amount will be forfeited without any further notice. The
petitioner received the communication of the second respondent dated 24.5.1994 on 26.5.1994 and wrote a letter expressing that it will take
minimum 20 days to furnish the bank guarantee after completing the formalities and hence requested to withdraw the conditions to remit the
security deposit on or before 2.6.1994. The Deputy Controller of Stores sent communication dated 31.5.1994 stating that the petitioner is granted
time upto 6.6.1994 to furnish the bank guarantee and to remit the security deposit and no further extension will be entertained. As the petitioner
could not comply with the same under the impugned proceedings, dated 8.6.1994 the respondent has forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit amount
of Rs. 50,000/- remitted against the tender. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings contending that as per the clause 11 of the tender
conditions which was referred by the respondent in his impugned proceedings, the petitioner is entitled for 14 days time to remit the security
deposit and furnish bank guarantee after the acceptance of the petitioner''s offer by the respondent As no point of time the 14 days time has been
granted to the petitioner by the respondent and hence it is not open to the respondents to rely upon the clause 11 of tender conditions and contend
that the petitioner did not comply with the condition and hence the E.M.D., amount is liable to be forfeited.
Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that though at a stretch the 14 days time has not been given, but, still by order dated 24.5.1994
the petitioner was given time till 2.6.1994 and thereafter by proceedings dated 31.5.1994 the time was extended to 6.6.1994 and as such the
clause 11 has been scrupulously followed. It is not open to the petitioner to contend that the sufficient time as contemplated under clause 11 has
not been granted.
Heard both the learned counsel. It could be seen that the respondent had sent the communication dated 24.5.1994 which was received by the
petitioner on 26.5.1994 requesting him to remit the amount of Rs. 2,70,400/- towards security deposit The petitioner by his letter dated 27.5.1994
had requested the respondent for 20 days time for the payment of the security deposit and also to complete the formalities such as furnishing the
bank guarantee etc., when the petitioner had sought for extension of 20 days time it is for the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner
and pas orders. Without any application of mind, the respondent has sent the communication dated 31.5.1994 extending time by 6.6.1994 so as to
comply with the clause 11 of the tender conditions. Had the 14 days time been given at the first instance, the petitioner would have taken some
steps to pay the amount as well as to furnish the bank guarantee without approaching the respondents for extension of time. When the respondent
had restricted the time by a week naturally, the petitioner had approached the respondent for extension of time and there is nothing wrong for the
petitioner to wait for the orders of the respondents for extension of time. In such circumstances, the respondent ought to have extended the time to
the petitioner both to pay the security deposit and to furnish bank guarantee. When the respondent has not granted 14 days time as stipulated
under clause 11 of the tender conditions the rejection order is liable to be set aside. It cannot be contended by the respondents that in piece-meal
they have extended the time in all together to a total of 14 days which would place the petitioner totally at the mercy of the respondent The conduct
of the respondents in violating the clause 11 of the tender conditions is contrary to law. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.6.1994
and consequentially to grant time for the petitioner to furnish the security deposits as well as bank guarantee and to clear the scrap. Subsequent to
the filing of the writ petition it is admitted by both the parties that fresh auction has been held and the goods have been disposed of. The learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the urgency the petitioner was not granted further time to deposit the security deposit and to
furnish the bank guarantee. The counsel for the respondents is not able to give the date on which the fresh auction was held. Even assuming that
there is so much of urgency in disposing of the goods, the respondents have not given any explanation as to how the respondents would be
prejudiced by granting 2 more weeks for explanation, I do not think the conduct of the respondent in passing the impugned order is bona fide.
Since already the goods have been sold, the relief by granting the contract to the petitioner cannot be given in this writ petition. For the reasons
stated above, the writ petition is allowed by directing the second respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which the petitioner paid by way of
Earnest Money Deposit, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in this writ petition from this court or on production of
the same by either party, whichever is earlier. No costs.