Shaffique,J
Writ petitioner is the appellant who challenges judgment dated 19/11/2014 in W.P.C.No.30367 of 2014.
2. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner wanted to submit a tender for which Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) is liable to be paid. According to him, he is a regular contractor of the department and large amounts are due to him in respect of various other works carried out by him. The relief sought for was to permit him to submit tender without remitting EMD and to adjust EMD from the admitted bill amount due to the petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition forming an opinion that the contract between the petitioner and the department being a commercial transaction, petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract and any such adjustments may violate the tender conditions.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the interim order dated 11/10/2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.C.No.24622/2013 by which direction was issued to the respondents to issue tender form to the petitioner and there was a further direction to consider the tender subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions. It is contended that, in that case also, the request was to adjust EMD from the pending admitted bills. It is submitted that this is an identical case where the interim order dated 11/10/2013 in W.P.C.No.24622/2013 can be made applicable.
5. Though the learned counsel relied upon Ext.P4(a) interim order, we are not satisfied with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, a notice inviting tender is issued calling upon the tenderers to submit EMD along with the tender. Each notice inviting tender is a separate transaction and only such tenderers who comply with the terms and conditions of the tender will be entitled to participate in the tender process. Petitioner can neither challenge the tender conditions nor can seek for any adjustment. Probably, if the department agrees, it is a different issue. In so far as the present notice inviting tender is concerned, there is no such provision enabling the petitioner to seek adjustment of the EMD from the admitted bills and we see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr