Madras High Court
Bismillah Steels Enterprises vs The Deputy Chief Materials Manager/Sd on 12 August, 2014
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-08-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.24488 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 Bismillah Steels Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, A.Mohammed Harris, No.57, Coramandal Town, Menambedu Road, Chennai-600 098. .. Petitioner vs. The Deputy Chief Materials Manager/SD, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai-600 038. .. Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the order passed by the respondent in No.ICF/SD/G/OT/003/09-10 dated 3.9.2009 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to pay the remaining balance amount and allow the petitioner to take scrap materials mentioned in the tender No.ICF/SD/G/OT/003/9-10. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondent : Mr.M.Vellaisamy O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the order passed by the respondent in No.ICF/SD/G/OT/003/09-10 dated 3.9.2009 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to pay the remaining balance amount and allow the petitioner to take scrap materials mentioned in the tender No.ICF/SD/G/OT/003/9-10.
2. The petitioner has participated in the tender called for by the Integral Coach Factory, hereinafter referred to as ICF, for sale of scrap materials like deal wood, packing plywood, etc., in July 2009. The petitioner had participated in the tender and deposited the earnest money amount of Rs.1 lakh to the total bid amount of Rs.1.95 lakhs, as required by the ICF. The tender was accepted and the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.95,000/-, on or before 27.8.2009. The petitioner was unable to pay the balance amount as per the time limit fixed by the ICF stating that the petitioner was hospitalised and he was taking treatment. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to extend the time till 3.3.2009 to pay the balance amount and the same was rejected by the respondent by its impugned order dated 3.9.2009. Questioning the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition stating that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and the petitioner having participated in the tender by depositing the earnest money and he was willing to pay the balance amount, but due to hospitalisation, he could not pay the balance amount within the time limit fixed by the respondent.
3. According to the petitioner, there are several instances where the ICF has permitted the balance amount to be paid beyond the time stipulated and hence the action of the ICF is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr.M.Vellaisamy, learned couunsel appearing for the respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein it was admitted that the petitioner ought to have deposited the balance amount of Rs.95,000/-, on or before 27.8.2009 and only after the expiry of the period of remittance, the petitioner-firm has forwarded a letter dated 27.8.2009 to the respondent, requesting for extension of time upto 3.9.2009. As per the tender conditions, a successful tenderer will have to deposit the amount with the Government, security deposit, after adjusting the earnest money deposit for fulfilment of the contract either in cash or in any form as per Clause 9, within 10 calendar days from the date of acceptance and if they failed to do so; the ICF has every right to forfeit the amount of EMD deposited. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners illness was genuine, he ought to have made a representation on or before the expiry of the date viz., 27.8.2009 and making representation after the expiry of the period would not entitle him to seek not only extension but also prevent the ICF from proceeding further in the matter. Hence, they are justified in forfeiting the EMD deposit.
5. Mr.Vellaisamy, learned couunsel for the respondent further contended that there is no provision for extension of time for remittance of security deposit. Though there is no provision for extension of time, the ICF could have extended the time limit when the petitioner was under hospitalisation, but that cannot be a sole ground as the petitioner has now shown any element of interest in paying the amount after the expiry of that period or produced a demand draft before this Court, contending that he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount.
6. Instead of doing so, by obtaining an interim order, which was extended time and again and finally until further orders on 7.6.2010, he has not taken any steps to fulfil the contract/tender conditions.
7. Hence, on equity, I find there are no genuine or bona fide reason on the part of the petitioner to demand extension of time for payment of the balance amount of Rs.95,000/-. If really the petitioner was interested, he could have taken steps to remit the balance amount, within the extended time sought for by the petitioner which the petitioner has failed to do so, even assuming that he is entitled to seek for extension of time. Therefore, I find no merits in the writ petition and the same is devoid of merits.
8. In the result, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
12-08-2014 Index : Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. Svn To The Deputy Chief Materials Manager/SD, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai-600 038.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Svn W.P.No.24488 of 2009 12-08-2014