IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.15 of 2010 Raj Kumar S/o Ganga Saran . .……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent No.1. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Heard Shri U.K. Uniyal, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for respondent No.1 and Shri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9th February, 2010 whereby the Court declined the petitioner for the release of the earnest money which was lying with the Zila Panchayat, Haridwar. The brief facts leading to the filing of the special appeal is, that the Zila Panchayat published a notice inviting tenders for the execution of different civil works. It has been stated that the tenders submitted by the petitioner was found to be the lowest and, based on that, the contract was executed but, in between, the State Government issued an order cancelling all the tenders and directed the Zila Panchayat to issue a fresh notice. The petitioners, being aggrieved, challenged the order of the State Government by filing a writ petition in which an interim order was granted staying the direction of the State Government inviting fresh applications. Based on the interim order, the petitioners 2 were allowed to execute the civil work and, during the pendency of the writ petition, the work was completed as per the contract. In effect, when the writ petition has been heard it had been rendered infructuous and a prayer was made that the earnest money deposited by the petitioner be refunded. The learned Single Judge, however, decided the matter on merits and held that the tender issued by the Zila Panchayat was illegal and, consequently, declined to release the earnest money. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this part of the order, has filed the present special appeal. The only question urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was for the refund of the earnest money in the light of the fact that the entire work as per the contract had been executed and completed by them. This Court had directed the Zila Panchayat to file a counter affidavit. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant had completed the various works as per the tender notice to their satisfaction and that the payments for the work done by the appellant had also been released. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the earnest money which was given by way of security for the execution of the contract should be refunded since the work has already been completed by them to the satisfaction of the Zila Panchayat. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled for the release of the earnest money. If such an application is made before the Zila Panchayat, the authority will release the earnest money. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Date: 09/04/2010 Shiv 3