HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.7702 of 2010 Date : 5-12-2011 Between: Y. Venkat Reddy s/o.Pedda Guruva Reddy .. Petitioner And The Chief Engineer, A.P. Social Welfare, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri G. Venkateshwarlu Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2 : Andapalli Sanjeeva Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has ﬁled his tender for construction of Late Sri Sardar Gouthu Latchanna Auditorium at Amberpet, Hyderabad. As per the tender conditions, he made earnest money deposit of Rs.1,63,000/-. The validity period of the bids is ﬁxed as 90 days from the last date of receipt of the bids. It is not in dispute that 7-11-2007 was the last date of receipt of the bids and accordingly the validity period of the petitioner’s bid has expired on 6-2- 2008. The petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder. According to petitioner, he has attended the oﬃce of respondent No.1 with all original documents on 2- 2-2008. However, on 4-2-2008, the petitioner has received a telegram from respondent No.2 wherein he was requested to attend his oﬃce on 5-2-2008 and with a further request to extend the tender validity period for one more month. The petitioner claimed that on the said date also he has attended, but no order accepting his bid was issued. After expiry of the tender validity period, the petitioner made a representation on 15-2-2008 to respondent No.2 requesting him to refund the earnest money deposit. As no action thereon was taken, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has attended the Chief Engineer’s oﬃce on 2-2-2008 and submitted all the original documents and that even though a telegram was issued to extend the validity of the oﬀer, the petitioner, in order to avoid execution of the contract, has not given extension. It is not disputed that as per condition No.13.1 of the tender conditions, the bid document shall remain valid for a period of 90 days from the last date of its receipt. It is also not in dispute that while the petitioner has not extended the validity of the bid, his bid was not accepted by the respondents before the expiry of the validity period. Irrespective of the intentions of the petitioner, the bid oﬀered by him will lose its validity on the expiry of 90 days. Having failed to accept the petitioner’s tender before the expiry of the validity period, the respondents cannot withhold his earnest money deposit. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the petitioner’s earnest money deposit within a period of one month from today, failing which the same will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed period. As a sequel, WPMP No.9907/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 5-12-2011 AM