Petitioner challenges the delay in awarding tender invited by the respondent authority in terms of Ext.P1 notice inviting tender.
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that though the petitioner had offered to conduct the Milma booth which was the subject matter of the tender for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, she was disqualified on account of the fact that her husband who was conducting the Milma booth was involved in breach of the conditions of the licence. Hence, the second lowest bidder was called for negotiation, who offered to take the Milma booth on licence by paying Rs.7,00,000/-. Hence the allotment was made in favour of the second highest at the same rate at which the petitioner has quoted.
W.P.C.No.12580/2014 2
3. At this stage, since the allotment has been made in favour of another person, the petitioner cannot have any complaint at all as she was disqualified from participating in the tender process. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks for a direction to the respondents to refund the security deposit.
If there is no other legal impediment, the respondent authority shall take steps to refund the security deposit of the petitioner within a period fo two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr