Sri Rahul Naik R vs. The Principal Secretary

Held

The Court held that the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) following the submission of the bid requires consideration by Respondent No. 2. The Court found that the tender document clearly stipulated the deposit of the entire amount for the issuance of the award and that the Court cannot direct the tender acceptance authority to relax these conditions. However, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of EMD is a matter that needs to be decided by Respondent No. 2 in accordance with the law. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 was directed to pass an appropriate order regarding the petitioner's entitlement to the refund of EMD after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise was to be completed within two months from the date of receiving the order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Rahul Naik R, participated in a tender process for the collection of tax from street vendors, issued by the City Municipal Corporation, Davanagere (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner was declared the successful bidder. The tender document stipulated a deposit of Rs. 69,06,000/- for the issuance of the award. The petitioner had initially deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) at the time of bid submission. However, the petitioner was unable to deposit the remaining Rs. 60,06,000/- due to unavoidable circumstances and approached the High Court seeking permission to pay in installments. The petitioner later sought a refund of the bid amount under EMD. The impugned endorsement/final 'Tiluvalike' dated 21.09.2024, bearing No. CMC.DVANAGERE/KUM.SHA/CR/48/2022-23, issued by Respondent No. 2, is under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) after submitting a bid for the collection of tax from street vendors, considering the terms of the tender document? The petitioner contended that they are seeking a refund of the bid amount under EMD due to an inability to deposit the remaining sum. The petitioner argued that the bid amount, including GST, was to be deposited before the issuance of the work award. The petitioner relied on the principle that EMD is refundable if the award is not issued. The respondents argued that the tender document clearly stipulates that the entire amount must be deposited by the successful bidder for the issuance of the award. They contended that the Court cannot direct the tender acceptance authority to relax these conditions. The respondents did not explicitly argue on the refund of EMD but emphasized the mandatory deposit requirement.