Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Manish Kumar Jain Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.1402/2018
M/s Manish Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others
1
Gwalior
19.1.2018
Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on admission.
(1) Petitioner takes exception to the communication
dated 4.1.2018 whereby the petitioner has been
informed that the decision has been taken to suspend
the registration of the petitioner for a period of three
years because of his non-compliance of the
stipulations contained in acceptance letter dated
1.7.2017. The said letter of acceptance was for
special repairing work of Bhind-Ater-Porsa Road (SH-
02) from KM. 00 to KM. 62 (PAC: Rs.227.60 Lacs)
(Tender No.672) which was in pursuance to the
NIT No. 2821/MPRDC/Procu/Maint/BAP/348/2017, dated
17.5.2017. The letter of acceptance clearly stipulated
the following terms:
"Your bid for the work mentioned above has
been accepted on behalf of Madhya Pradesh
Road Development Corporation Limited at your
bided percentage 24.99% (Twenty four point
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.1402/2018
M/s Manish Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others
2
nine nine percentage) below the bill of
Quantities and item wise rates given therein.
You are requested to submit within 15 (Fifteen)
days from the date of issue of this letter :
a. The performance security/ performance
guarantee of Rs. 8.54 Lakhs (Rupees Eight lakh
fifty four thousand only). The performance
security shall be in the shape of term deposit
receipt bank guarantee of any nationalized /
schedule commercial bank valid up to three
months after the expiry of defects liability
period.
b. The additional performance security /
additional performance guarantee of Rs. 17.06
Lakhs (Rupees Seventeen Lakh six thousand
only). The performance security shall be in the
shape of term deposit receipt bank guarantee of
any nationalized / schedule commercial bank
valid up to Construction period.
c. Sign the contract agreement of e-stamp of
value 0.25% of performance security and
additional performance security (if any) subject
to minimum Rs. 500/- or maximum of Rs.
25,000/- as per the Indian stamp (Madhya
Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2015, cost of e-stamp
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.1402/2018
M/s Manish Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others
3
are to be borne by the Bidder.
d. Submit copy of the valid registration with
the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, PWD at the time
of signing of the contract agreement.
Please note that the time allowed for
carrying out the work as entered in the bid is 02
months including rainy season, shall be reckoned
from the date of signing the contract agreement.
Signing the contract agreement shall be
reckoned as intimation to commencement of
work and no separate letter for commencement
of work is required. Therefore, after signing of
the agreement, you are directed to contact the
Engineer-in-charge/ Concerned Divisional
Manager of MPRDC for taking the possession of
site and necessary instructions to start the
work."
(2) Evidently the petitioner has not complied the
stipulation contained in clause a, b, c and d within the
time stipulated. Instead, sought certain clarification qua
the GST which was not the condition laid down in the
letter of acceptance. The consequence of non-
compliance of the terms of letter of acceptance is
spelt out in clause 23.1 (Section-2: I.T.B.). The same
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.1402/2018
M/s Manish Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others
4
was informed to the petitioner vide communication
dated 12.7.2017, 22.7.2017 and 1.8.2017 failing which
the petitioner was informed that besides cancelling the
letter of acceptance his registration shall also be
suspended for a period of three years. Since the
petitioner did not comply of the same, therefore, as per
clause 17.6 and 23.3 (Section-2:I.T.B.) the earnest
money deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and
was issued a notice as to why the registration be not
suspended. As the petitioner failed to response to the
same, the impugned order came to be passed.
(3) Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner
that gross error has been committed by the respondents
in cancelling the letter of acceptance and by suspending the registration for a period of three years. However, taking into consideration the fact that it is the petitioner who had failed to abide by the stipulations contained in letter of acceptance dated 1.7.2017 as also the notices issued to him i.e. on 12.7.2017, 22.7.2017 and 1.8.2017, we do not find any illegality THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.1402/2018 M/s Manish Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others 5 on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order as would warrant any indulgence.
(4) Consequently, petition fails is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR
2018.01.23 12:21:29 +05'30'