Sh. Shishupal Sharma vs. The Commissioner Of Transport-Cum-Chairman Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the respondents' insistence on the IFSD being deposited in the form of a Pay Order/Demand Draft/Bank Guarantee, and not accepting an FDR, was contrary to the conditions stipulated in the NIT and its addendum. Both the NIT and the addendum explicitly allowed for the deposit of IFSD in the form of an FDR. The Court found that the respondents could not unilaterally alter this condition while issuing the LOA. Furthermore, the petitioner had promptly represented against this change. The Court noted that the respondents failed to respond to the petitioner's representation and, on the same day they rejected it, proceeded to forfeit the EMD and debar the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The Court reasoned that conditions must be made known in advance, and the petitioner could not be compelled to comply with modified conditions or face forfeiture and blacklisting. Consequently, the Court held that calling upon the petitioner to deposit advance license fees and maintenance charges under these circumstances was impermissible. The impugned order forfeiting the EMD and blacklisting the petitioner was set aside, and the respondents were directed to refund the EMD within four weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Shishupal Sharma, participated in a tender process initiated by the Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (DTIDC) for the license of a kiosk at ISBT, Anand Vihar. The Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and its addendum allowed for the deposit of Interest Free Security Deposit (IFSD) in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). However, the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) issued to the petitioner stipulated that the IFSD must be in the form of a Pay Order/Demand Draft/Bank Guarantee. The petitioner represented against this change, requesting acceptance of an FDR. The DTIDC rejected this representation and, on the same day, forfeited the petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 2,00,000/- and blacklisted him for four financial years. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, initially seeking multiple reliefs, but later confined his prayer to the refund of EMD and setting aside the blacklisting order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents could unilaterally change the terms of the tender, specifically regarding the mode of deposit for the Interest Free Security Deposit (IFSD), after issuing the Letter of Acceptance (LOA), contrary to the provisions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and its addendum? The petitioner argued that the LOA could not impose conditions different from the NIT and addendum, which allowed for FDRs. The petitioner contended that the respondents acted arbitrarily by rejecting his representation and immediately forfeiting the EMD and blacklisting him without a hearing. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with other conditions in the LOA, such as depositing advance license fees and maintenance charges, thus disentitling him to any relief. 2. Whether the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and the blacklisting of the petitioner were justified, given the alleged unilateral change in tender conditions and the lack of opportunity for a hearing?