AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court whereby the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was allowed, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him was set aside and the Petitioner was directed to refund of the security deposit with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.04.2010 with a further direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to lodge a first information report and investigate into the matter and take such further appropriate steps as are required to be taken under the law in respect of cognizable offences.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Shri Amit Sibal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made considerable efforts to convince us that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition because the issues raised by Respondent No. 1 involved investigation into disputed questions of fact and the Division Bench committed an error by directing refund of the security deposit to Respondent No. 1 ignoring that he had defaulted in complying with the terms specified in the tender notice, but we have not felt convinced. In our view, the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly come to the conclusion that forfeiture of the security deposit of Respondent No. 1 was legally untenable and unjustified because Respondent No. 1 had not been informed0555 about the requirement of depositing 50% of the bid amount by the particular date.
We are further of the view that the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court for registration of the case by the Central Bureau of Investigation is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, fully justified because award of contract at a price less than the reserve price prima facie appears to have caused considerable loss to the revenue of the Corporation.
However, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the High Court should not have awarded interest to Respondent No. 1 because the Corporation did not earn any interest on the fixed deposit made by Respondent No. 1.
The SLP is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the condition that the Appellant shall not be required to pay interest to Respondent No. 1 in terms of the direction given by the High Court.