HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25341 of 2014 Date : 27-11-2014 Between :
U. Bheemanna ..
Petitioner And The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Members. S. Sravana Sandhya for Sri Ramana Allu Counsel for respondents : Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Standing Counsel The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare proceedings No.P4/122/(4)2014-RR, dated 16-6-2014 of respondent No.2 whereby he has forfeited the earnest money deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by the petitioner for participating in the tender.
In response to the tender notification issued by respondent No.2 for filing tenders for running the business of two wheeler parking in stall No.C-3 of the Jubilee Bus Station, the petitioner has submitted his tender along with demand draft dated 16-4-2014 for Rs.2,50,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). On the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the demand draft for the stipulated sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by the petitioner towards part EMD has been forfeited by the impugned proceedings.
No counter-affidavit is filed.
I have heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that in forfeiting the EMD furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has relied upon Clause 17(b) of the terms and conditions of the tender schedule which envisages forfeiture of EMD if the same is paid less than what is stipulated in the tender. In my opinion, such a condition is wholly arbitrary. By remitting the EMD in short, a tenderer will not ordinarily gain anything. On the contrary, such short payment will be at the risk of his tender being disqualified. The respondents can only reject the petitioner’s tender by treating the same as invalid in case of short remittance of the EMD amount. In this view of the matter, I do not find any rationality in forfeiting the amount paid by the petitioner towards the EMD.
For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to refund the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.31693 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 27-11-2014 AM