HIGH cOURT OF CHHATTI$§ARH AT BILA§PUR DB: Hon’ble §hri Bhirendra Mishra & Hon’blg Shri RN. chandrakar. JJ. Misc. Petition No.1 603 of 1989 Petitioner Mls. Hiren Kumar Patel & vCo Bidi Leave Merchant. Head Omce Ahamedabad, Branch Gffice Rajnandgaon thtough Rasik Bhai Patel Slo. Shri Nalain Bhai Patel. aged 44 years. Ric. Fewer Hctwe Rcad, Kai!ash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rainandgaon, M.P. Vs. 1. Managing Director, MP. Stata'Minor Forest, Produce (Trading and Deveiopment) Corporation, E-2i38-39 Arera Coiony, Bhopal. 2. Divisional Forest Officer. North Biiaspur, District Bilaspur MP. & Divisional Ex- Ofl'icio Manager, Minor Forest Produce (Trading and Development) Corporation, North Bilaspur MP. 3. Conservator of Forest. Raipur, Division Raipur, MPJArea Manager, Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Corporalion, Raipur. Respondents Present Shri BD. Guru, counsel for the patitioner. Shri AS. Kachhwaha, counsel for respondent No.1. Ehri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.2 Eu 3/State. (1) ORAL JUDGMENT (02.1 2.201 O) ln response to tender notice of Annexure-R/‘l by respondent No.1, petitioner submitted his offer for Jalke Unit No.521 and quoted his rate as Rs.5,05,000i- . For the same Jalke Unit. one Nitin Trading Company also gave their offer as Rs.5,11,000/— and their offer being highest, was accepted. However. respondents have forfeited 10% of earnest money, i.e. Rs.50,500i- on the ground that the petitioner has filed his offer for-Unit (2) (3) '\. @ No.521 and not for Unit No.520 which is the number allotted to forest un‘rc Jalke as per provisions of Clause 7(3)(1) of the tender conditions of Annxure-Rn . Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that forfeiting the earnest money of the petitioner was not justified on the ground of unintentionai error in mentioning the number of forest unit Jaike by invoking clause 7(3) of the tender notice particularly when no loss has been occurred to respondent as forest unit Jalke was awarded to one Nitin Trading Company for Rs.5,11,000/- and forfeiting of earnest money for Rs.50,5()01— for breach of condition Clause 7(3) of the tender notice-virtuaily amounts the imposition of penalty. It was further argued that identical issues cropped up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Niisc. Petition No.514l‘l988 li-laji Abdul Sattar Vs. MP. State Minor Forest Produce lTradinn and Development) Go-oggrative marketing Federation Ltd. And others} and the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 02.05.1988, allowing the writ petitions held that the respondent is not justified in forfeiting the entire eamest money in these cases and the respondent is only entitled to reasonable combensation for the loss caused due to the breach committed by the Detitioners 0n the other hand, Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that Unit No.521 mentioned by the petitioner in his offer wa allotted to Pali Unit and not for Jalke and the offer was considered by the respondents for Pali, however, the petitioner did not stick by his tender and ultimately Unit No.521 was sold for a sum of Rs.3,38‘,787I-, thereby causing loss to the respondents. As per Clause 7(3) of the tender notice, on account of mistake in the tender form submitted by the petitioner, 10% of s w the eamest money deposited by him has been fotfeited. The gudgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Ptadesh High Court has no application an the facts of the ptesent case as in the instant case oniy 10% of the earnest money has been forfeited and not the entire eamest money which is permissibie according to the iaw iaid down in the aforesaid judgment. Facts are distingmshabie on the ground that in the present case, the respondents suifered loss of Rs.1!50,0001— on account of mistake In the tender form submitted by the petitioner. Heard iearned counsei for the parties! perused the pleadings of the respective parties. indisputably, Ctause 7(3) of the tender notice of Annexure-RH cieariy stipulates that if there is any inadvertent mistake committed by the tenderer in the tender, his tender wouid not be considered and 10% of the earnest money would be forfeited. After considering the arguments of teamed counsei for the parties and after going throunh the iudgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. in the matter of Hair Abdui Sanar Vs M P State (supra) we are of the opinion that the cited iudgment is distinguishabie on fact as in the insmnt ease there is a ‘7 eif A. pleading by the respondent in the return that they sutiered loss on account of mistake committed by the petition in the tender form and only 10% of the earnest money has been forfeited as per rciause ((3) of the tender notice and not the entire eamest money as was the case in the citedjudgment. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any substance in the petition and the same deserves to be and is accordingiy dismissed. No order as to Bihi' i ‘ i . R.N. Chandrakar 3d]. meme Judge Hmmmt Judge i i