Jharkhand High Court
Varahi Associates vs Central Coalfields Limited on 14 February, 2019
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6248 of 2018
---------
Varahi Associates, a partnership firm having its registered office at 11, Bhagat Complex, Agarsan Marg, Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chattishgarh ......... Petitioner Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited
2. The General Manager (A), Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited
3. The Staff Officer (Mining), Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited
4. The Project Officer, Giddi A Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, Sirka, Argada Area .......... Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
---
04/14.02.2019 This writ petition has been filed to quash the letter as contained
in Ref. No.GM (A)/MIN/GDA/Line No.5/2018/500 dated 15.09.2018 issued under the signature of the Staff Officer (Mining), Argada Area,, whereby and whereunder earnest money has been directed to be forfeited and he has been debarred for a period of three years as per the clause nos.4.2 and 4.3 of GTC.
Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having been declared successful in the tender, the work order has been issued but the performance security money deposited which is condition precedent to come out with an agreement has not been executed and therefore, the work has not been commenced, in view thereof, impugned decision has been taken.
It is evident from the material available in the pleading made in the writ petition that as per the condition of tender, performance security money is required to be deposited and therefore, the agreement executed in declaring the performance and in consequence thereof, the work could commence but it is evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Central Coalfield Limited that there is laches on the part of the petitioner but in spite of the condition stipulated in the instruction to bidders, he was required to deposit the performance security money so that the agreement to be entered into, which is the laches on his part in not depositing the performance security money, the agreement has been executed and result thereof, the work has not been commenced and as such, the petitioner has retracted back from the terms and conditions of the bidders, therefore, the authorities have to consider the aforesaid fact has taken the penal action by forfeiting the earnest money as also debarring the petitioner for three years in participating in the bid.
This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into stand taken by the Central Coalfield Limited in the counter affidavit is of the view that the decision taken by the respondent management is justified, for the reason that the petitioner after submitting the application in pursuant to the notice inviting tender has participated in the bid, he having been declared successful in the process of bid. Although, he has deposited the earnest security money but as per the condition, he ought to have deposited the performance security money and it is only thereafter the agreement was to be executed but he has not deposited the performance security money, therefore, the agreement has not been executed and in consequence thereof, the work has not been commenced.
It is not in dispute that any notice inviting tender is issued i.e. for the purpose of performance of work, if a bidder is participating in the bid having been declared successful, he is to follow instruction contained in the bid documents, so that the work in question be executed properly.
It is admitted fact that the petitioner who ought to have deposited the performance security money which was condition precedent for entering into the agreement but he has not done so, as would be evident from the counter affidavit which has not been retracted by filing any reply.
In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the authority as impugned in this writ petition, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Rohit/-
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J)