Facts
The petitioner participated in a tender for construction of a bridge and approach road, depositing an EMD of ₹36,65,000.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11It was declared technically responsive and emerged as L-1.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11The respondent Nigam sought an extension of the bid-validity period.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11After initially declining, the petitioner agreed to extend validity subject to conditions concerning land acquisition, changes to the technical sanction and lead distance, and an extension of the completion period.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11The Nigam did not accept those conditions; its committee instead decided to cancel the tender and take action against the petitioner under the Standard Bidding Document.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11The Senior Project Engineer issued a show-cause notice proposing forfeiture of the EMD and debarment.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11The petitioner challenged the notice and sought return of the EMD.
Source reference: pp. 2–6, paras. 3–11Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s conditional consent to extend bid validity, where the conditions were not accepted by the Nigam, could justify proceedings to forfeit the EMD and debar the petitioner
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 12–142. Whether the show-cause notice should be set aside and the EMD refunded in the circumstances of the case
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 14–15Law Applied
No statute or judicial precedent was expressly cited.
Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras. 11–14The Court applied the principle that a bidder’s failure to extend bid validity does not, by itself, justify forfeiture of the EMD or debarment where the bidder’s proposed conditions for extension have not been accepted by the tendering authority.
Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras. 11–14The respondents referred to the Standard Bidding Document as the basis for action, but the Court did not identify or set out a specific provision of that document
Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras. 11–14Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had agreed to extend bid validity only on specified conditions and that the Nigam had not accepted them.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 12–14In those circumstances, the petitioner had not extended the bid validity on terms agreed by both parties.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 12–14The Court held that this could not, merely for that reason, support action to forfeit the EMD or debar the petitioner.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 12–14It also took into account the respondents’ counter-affidavit and the fact that their counsel did not seriously contest the petitioner’s case
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 12–14Holding
The Court set aside the impugned show-cause notice and directed that the EMD of ₹36,65,000 be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks.
The writ petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications.
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 14–17Original Court PDF
Tirupati Balaji Earth Work Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam Ltd.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
