High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing Lr. No. PDS. 2/t\4ovt/FG5(.1)i Stage- I Tenders/2o21- 23lTS dt. 10. 05. 2023 issued by the 1St RespondentforfeitingRs.15,00,000/-paidbythePetitionertowardsEMDin pursuance of the E- Tender Notice dl. 22.12.2021, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, suffers and 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dt. 10.05 2023 and consequently direct the 1St Respondent to return the said amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest @ 24 Yo per annum from 10.04.2022, on which date Bid Validity was expired, till the date of payment. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioners representation dt' 10.04.2023 by suspending the impugned proceedings bearing Lr. No. PDS. 2/tvlovtiFG5 (1)/Stage- lTenders/2021- 23iTS dt. 10.05.2023 issued by the lst Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petitton. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K.DEVENDER, SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Gounsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER .; THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADIIAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.568 of 2o24 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings bearing Lr.No.PDS.2/Movt/FGs(1)/Stage-l Tenders/2027-23/TS, dated 10.05.2023, issued by respondent No. 1 forfeiting EMD of Rs. 15 lakhs pursuant to E Tender notice dated

22.72.2021, AS illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and direct respondent No.l to return the said EMD amount with interest frorn 1O.O4.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that iir response to E-Tender notifrcation dated 22.12.2021, the petitioner has participated and has submitted the EMD of Rs. 15 lakhs. The respondents did not hna-lize the tender within the bid validity period i.e., O9.O4.2O22 and therefore, they have issued order dated O7.O4.2O22 extending the bid validity period for a further period of 90 days i.e., up to O8.O7.2022. Thereafter, the respondents did not extend the bid validity period, but, however, issued appointment order 2 dated 10.O8.2022 to the petitioner. Since the bid validity period has already expired, the petitioner expressed his inability to proceed with the contract and sought refund of the EMD amount. However, ttre same was rejected on

10.05.2023 by observing that as per clause 48(v) of the tender terms and conditions, for non-submission of security deposit ald bank guarantee in a stipulated time after acceptance of the appointment order, the EMD has to be forfeited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these proceedings are clearly illegal and in violation of the tender terms and conditions. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have extended the validity period only up to 08.07.2022 and, the petitioner had not sought extension of the bid validity period thereafter ald therefore, there was no validity of the bid after O8.O7 .2022 and the respondents could not have issued the appointment order therea-fter on 1O.O8.2O22.

3. Learned counsei for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.1643 1 of 2012, dated O2.O9.2O15, wherein in similar circumstances, it has been held that aJter expiry of the 3 validity period of the bid, the EMD amount ca-nnot be forfeited and even the petitioner's offer therea-fter could not have been accepted

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, particularly, paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is admitted that the appointment order was issued on 1O.O8.2O22 i.e., after the second extension of the validity period was given up to O8.O7.2O22, this Court is of the opinion that the bid was not valid aller 08.07 .2022 and therefore, the appointment order dated 10.08.2022 is invalid. The invalidity of the bid is not due to the reason attributable to the petitioner and therefore, there cannot be any forfeiture of the EMD of the petitioner. The respondents could not have kept the EMD amount for such a long period.

6. In view thereof, the respondents are directed to refund the EMD amount of Rs.15 lakhs along with interest that is I I i 4 :: being given by the State Bank of India on its fixed deposits from the date of request of the petitioner for refund till the date of payment. The payment shall be made r.r'ithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD'-K.BHAVANI SWAMY a3stsrnur REGISTRAR SEC N OFFI CER To, rhe Vice chairman qF M;ffis[303]'3"fliJ;:i'slg:t1rs,t?L: 3'Jll SxEElE: Corooration Limited' Havtn' ;Xl;.",'5;r;iiguoa. Hvoeiauad- 500082' The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department' Secretariat' Saifabad' Hyderabad, State of Telangana' One CC to SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI' Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI K.DEVENDER, SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR CIVL SUPPLIES' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 2 3 4 Two CD CoPies t) BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ORDER WP.No.568 of 2024 a:..lti H Po k a 30JUt m25 q J o \\ 2r r) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS v 1"4 ,/7k ,/,{ u