Refund of EMD Rs.50,000/- for rejecting his incomplete Tender who failed to mention monthly rent in application - Respondent forfeited the same - writ - their lordships held that forfeiture of EMD merely on the ground that the tender is incomplete is highly irrational. Such an action causes double disadvantage to the tenderer namely, rejection of the tender as well as the forfeiture of the EMD. - the impugned clause has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and the same constitutes patent arbitrariness. A Statutory Corporation, such as respondent No.1, cannot resort to unjust enrichment by stipulating such clauses.-respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- to thepetitioner - 2015 Telangana & A.P. 2015MSKLAWREPORT




  As the
petitioner failed to mention the monthly rent against column No.4 of the
tender form, his tender was not only rejected treating the same as invalid,
but also the sum of Rs.50,000/- paid as EMD was forfeited by respondent
No.2.  Aggrieved by the said forfeiture, the petitioner has filed W.P.

The purpose of an EMD
is to make the tenderer bound by the tender conditions and in the event
of violation of the tender conditions the Corporation will recover the loss,
if any, caused by such tenderer for his violation through forfeiture of EMD.
The inevitable consequence of an incomplete tender is its rejection.  In
my opinion, forfeiture of EMD merely on the ground that the tender is
incomplete is highly irrational.  Such an action causes double
disadvantage to the tenderer namely, rejection of the tender as well as
the forfeiture of the EMD. 
 The respondents have not explained the
rationale behind stipulating condition No.4(d).  It is not the pleaded case
of the respondents that by rejection of the petitioners tender it has
suffered any loss.  
On the contrary, it has awarded contract to another
person by name one Rajendra Prasad who emerged as successful    
tenderer.  Even in the rejection order, except relying upon condition
No.4(d) of the tender conditions, respondent No.2 has not assigned any
reason for forfeiting the petitioners EMD.  
In my considered view, the
impugned clause has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and 
the same constitutes patent arbitrariness.  A Statutory Corporation, such
as respondent No.1, cannot resort to unjust enrichment by stipulating
such clauses. 
        For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed.  The
respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)