CWP No. 3938 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 3938 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.03.2010 Rational Business Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. The petitioner is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of respondents No.1 and 2 declaring the petitioner technically disqualified and seeking the mandamus commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the technical bid along with EMD of the petitioner, to be valid. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that a tender notice dated 22.12.2009 was published by Transport Department (Haryana Roadways), whereby sealed tenders were invited for purchase/printing of bus tickets, in Two Bid System i.e. technical bid and financial bid, which were to be CWP No. 3938 of 2010 2 submitted in separate sealed envelop alongwith Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.10 lacs; the petitioner submitted sealed tender vide bid letter dated 16.1.2010 alongwith necessary documents/EMD in the shape of bank guarantee from the Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs.10 lacs. On the opening of the bid, the petitioner was declared technically disqualified on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited EMD of Rs.10 lacs in the shape of bank draft. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although, as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice, EMD of Rs.10 lacs was to be deposited in the shape of bank draft, however, the petitioner has deposited bank guarantee of Rs.10 lacs issued by the Punjab National Bank, the same should have been treated at par with the bank draft. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner – firm is registered as NSIC and as per Rule 157(1) of General Finance Rules, 2005, the petitioner is exempted from submitting bank guarantee in the shape of bank draft. 5. Undisputedly, the terms and conditions of the tender as published, contains a clear-cut condition that EMD is to be submitted in the shape of bank draft. This is also settled principle of law that terms and conditions of the tender should be construed strictly and no deviation therefrom is permissible in favour of any person. Since EMD of Rs.10 lacs was not to be deposited in the shape of bank guarantee, hence in our view, action of respondents No.1 and 2 rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted EMD of Rs.10 lacs in the shape of bank draft, seems to be justified. CWP No. 3938 of 2010 3 6. We have perused Annexure P-2 issued by NSIC Ltd., Branch Office, Delhi. Undisputedly, this is applicable in the matter of Departments of Central Government or Government of India Undertakings. It seems that it is not applicable in the State owned corporations. Of course, Annexure P- 2 provides that a contractor registered with NSIC is exempted from payment of earnest money/security deposit, however, as we have observed earlier, it applies to the Central Government Departments and not on the State owned corporations. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and we find no merit in the petition. 8. The petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 08.03.2010 sk.