HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI Writ Petition No. 14145 of 2001 Between: N. Chandrasekhar … Petitioner And Government of A.P., Rep. by its Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad … Respondent :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri P. Venu Gopal Counsel for the respondent : Government Pleader for Medical & Health September 12, 2007 The petitioner, who gave bid for award of contract to run medical shop at Osmania General Hospital, has filed this petition for quashing communication dated 28.06.2001 sent by Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad (the respondent herein) and also for issue of a direction to him to refund the earnest money deposit of Rs. 75,900/-. In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has averred that he has deposited Rs. 75,900/- as earnest money with tender form, but withdrew the same before the acceptance of his offer and yet the respondent arbitrarily declined to return the earnest money. In the counter-affidavit filed by him, Dr. Rupender Prasad, the then Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital has averred that the tenders were opened on 13.06.2001 and the bid given by the petitioner was accepted. This is evinced from paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit of Shri Rupender Kumar. The same read as under: “ 3. In reply to para-3, it is to submit that we have issued tender notification dated 245.5.2001 as issued for running a medical shop within the premises of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad last date of receiving tender dt. 8.6.2001 ( a copy of the terms and conditions and tender form enclosed). The petitioner Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, S/o Sri Venkateswar aged 40 years has deposited a sum of Rs. 75,9900/- (Rupees seventy five thousand and nine hundred only) as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) with us. Since he is the highest bidder and agreed to run the medical shop in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for a period of two years and accepted in tender on 13.6.2001. It is to submit that the petitioners himself bidder and his tender was accepted on 13.06.2001. 4. In reply to paras – 4 it is to submit that the tenderer has given a letter on 14.6.2001 (after opening tenders in which he has been declared the bidder of the tender on 13.6.2001 stating that he has thereby withdrawn his tender offer of Rs.1,26,500/- and requested to return the EMD). This is against the basic rules of the tender notification. In general and in particular rule 12 of the Tender notification. Rule 12 reads as follow: “Any deviation from the terms and conditions will result in forfeituring the security deposit;” 5. As per the terms and conditions of Rule – 6 of the Tender Schedule as follows: “Successful bidder should deposit (3) months rent as quoted by him as security deposit in the shape of D.D. in favour of the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The security deposit will not earn any interest. Security deposit among will be returned only after expiry of the contract period.” 1. Rs.1,26,500 x 3 months rent - Rs. 3,79,500-00 towards security deposit. 2. Rs.1,26,599 x 1 month rent - Rs. 1,26,500/- towards advance. Total : Rs. 5,06,000-00 The petitioner has not filed rejoinder affidavit to controvert the averments contained in the affidavit of Shri Rupender Prasad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the record. In my opinion, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. A reading of the documents filed by the petitioner and the affidavit of Dr. Rupender Prasad leaves no manner of doubt that the tenders received pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent were opened on 13.06.2001 and the highest bid of Rs. 5,06,000 given by the petitioner was accepted. On the next day i.e. 14.06.2001, the petitioner submitted application for withdrawal of the tender and refund of the earnest money deposit, which was rejected by the respondent. The petitioner has not produced any material on the record of the writ petition to show that he had submitted application for withdrawal of his offer before opening of the bids on 13.06.2001. Therefore, his prayer for refund of earnest money cannot be accepted. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ September 12, 2007 ksld HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No. 19270 of 2007 Between: A. Ram Mohan Raju … Petitioner And Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad & another … Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri V.V.N. Chary September 11, 2007 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ The petitioner, who is engaged in construction business, prayed for restraining Hyderabad Urban Development Authority from auctioning the land demarcated as parks and public amenities. At the hearing, Shri V.V.N. Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner gave out that his client filed this petition by way of public interest litigation. According to him, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the auction because if he participates in the auction proposed to be held by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in the lay out for Madapur, there is likelihood of the auction getting entangled in litigation and in that event he may not get refund of the earnest money deposit. In our opinion, a preemptive petition like the present one cannot be entertained for restraining a public authority from undertaking auction of the land. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to participate in the auction, if any to be held by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and take chance of being successful bidder. While dismissing the writ petition, we make it clear that by a separate order passed today in Writ Petition No. 19277 of 2007, the Court has restrained the respondents from auctioning the land adjacent to plot Nos. 15/1 and 15/2 in the lay out plans of HUDA Techno, Madhapur. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24771 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J September 11, 2007 ksld