1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 4 th February, 2016
passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no.
5572/2014 whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed. The challenge in the writ
petition was primarily to the letter dated 20th February, 2014 issued by
respondent no.2 forfeiting the earnest money of Rs.9,18,000/- of the appellant.
Consequential relief was also sought for the refund of the same with interest.
2. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that a tender notice
LPA-142/2016 Page 1 of 5
was issued by the respondent Corporation inviting bids for a period of three
years for statutory testing and painting of LPG Cylinders. The bids were
submitted in two parts, i.e., technical and financial bid. The last date for
submission of the tender was 30th October, 2013 at 11.00 Hrs. and the
technical bid was to be opened at 11.30 Hrs. same day. The earnest money for
submission of tender was Rs.9,18,000/- payable at New Delhi. It was the
stand of the appellant in the petition that as per the bid document, the bidder
who is an existing party was required to submit a copy of PESO license, or a
copy of having applied for the same, copy of factory license and proof of
having applied for its renewal and copy of Provident Fund Registration
Number. It was the case of the appellant, as it was not having valid factory
license, on the advice of the officials of the respondent Corporation, appellant
had applied for factory license on 25th October, 2013 along with all required
documents and court fee with retrospective date, i.e., the year of 2007. The
appellant duly submitted his tender on 28 th October, 2013 along with a
demand draft of Rs.9,18,000/-. Along with the bid, the appellant had
submitted a copy of the application filed for factory license. The appellant
was declared successful and was issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 28th
November, 2013. As per the Letter of Intent, the appellant was required to
submit a factory license on or before 28th January, 2014. The appellant’s case
LPA-142/2016 Page 2 of 5
was that it had addressed a letter dated 6th December, 2013 to the respondent
Corporation asking for extension of time for submission of the factory license.
It was the case of the appellant in the writ petition that the appellant was
pursuing for the factory license, in the meanwhile instead of considering the
genuine and bona fide request of the appellant, to the utter shock, the appellant
received a letter dated 20th February, 2014 intimating the earnest money has
been forfeited as it had failed to comply with the tender requirements. It is the
submission of Mr. A.K. Singla, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant that the
appellant had never represented that it had the factory license. In fact, a
stipulation in the tender documents included that the party, which had applied
for license of factory was also eligible to tender. He states that the appellant
had written a letter to the respondent Corporation to grant him time to submit
the factory license. Unfortunately, the said request was not heeded to. Mr.
Singla would concede that the application submitted by the appellant for
obtaining factory license was rejected in the month of March, 2014 on the
ground that the license was applied for a factory which falls in residential
zone. He submitted that the appellant had applied for fresh license at a new
address and got the license on 31st March, 2016.
Source: Indian Kanoon