IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34431 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S SREE NARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS (PVT) LTD, SREENIVAS, OPP.KSRTC (KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION) BUS STATION, KOLLAM 691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.VARADARAJAN. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD, CHAVARA PO, KOLLAM 691583, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD, CHAVARA PO, KOLLAM 691583. SRI.K.ANAND, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34431/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM DT 26.8.11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 13.10.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPODNENT ACCEPTING THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PRE-BID MEETING HELD ON 12.10.11. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETER DT 17.11.11 SUBMITTED BY THE EPTITIOENR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34431 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner had submitted a tender as per Ext.P1. That tender form of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. However, the Earnest Money Deposit made by the petitioner was not returned and in this writ petition, the prayer sought is for directing the respondents to return the EMD. 3. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents, who submits that in terms of Clause 6.1 of the tender, EMD is liable to returned within 30 days of award of contract to the successful tenderer. It is stated that tender has not so far been awarded to anybody and it was therefore that petitioner's EMD was not returned. However, fact remains that the petitioner's tender is already rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is not in the reckoning at all. In such circumstances, Clause 6.1 relied on to deny refund of the EMD cannot be pressed into service at least as far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing WPC No.34431/11 :2 : that the EMD made by the petitioner in the tender submitted by him in pursuance to Ext.P1 will be refunded on the production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp