Shiv Shakti Cylinders Thr. Its … vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And … on 22 December, 2016

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

Leave a Reply

*