WP(C) 5740/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in the wri t petition and Mr. U. C. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 in the writ petition. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.8. The petitioner has submitted its bid pursuant to the tender notice, dated 04.09. 2010 and adhoc Tender Notice, dated 22.09.2010, issued by the Food Corporation o f India (in short, ’the FCI’). The petitioner’s bid pursuant to the tender notic e, dated 04.09.2010, was in respect of item No.3, namely, Ex-Rly siding to Hojai /FCI FSD Hojai to FCI FSD Diphu via weighbridge on regular basis for a period of 2(two) years. The work enlisted in item No.3 aforementioned has already been aw arded by the FCI to respondent No.8 herein. At this stage, therefore, the petiti oner’s remedy lies in filing appropriate writ petition, if advised, for setting aside the allotment of work in favour of respondent No.8. In the present writ petition, since there is no challenge to the allotment of t he said work in favour of the respondent No.8, the petitioner remains at liberty to challenge awarding of the contract by the FCI in favour of the respondent No .8, if the allotment of work, in favour of respondent No.8, is in denial of the rightful claim of the petitioner. As far as the ad hoc Tender Notice, dated 22.9.2010, is concerned, the petitione r had submitted its bid in respect of item Nos.2, 3 and 4, mentioned therein, n amely, Ex-Rly siding New Guwahati/FCI FSD New Guwahati Complex to FCI FSD Bualpu i (Mizoram) weighbridge; Ex-Rly siding New Guwahati/FCI FSD New Guwahati Comple x to FCI FSD Kolasib (Mizoram) via weighbridge and Ex-Rly siding Changsari/CWC godown at Amingaon to Ramnagar via weighbridge respectively. Appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, i.e., Food Corporation of Ind ia (in short, FCI), Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel, submits that the petitioner’ s tender has been opened in respect of item Nos. 2, 3 and 4 aforementioned and t he petitioner’s bids along with other bidders are being examined by the Technica l Committee and in terms of whatever decision is taken by the Technical Committe e, further action, as regards the opening of the price bid of the bidders, would be taken. Mr. Roy also points out that in accordance with the terms and conditi ons of the NIT, forfeiture of the earnest money deposit disqualifies a person fr om being eligible to bid for the award of the work. This writ petition, admittedly, does not challenge the terms and conditions, whi ch have been set out in the tender notices, dated 04.09.2010 and adhoc Tender No tice, dated 22.09.2010. It has, however, been submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitione r’s earnest money deposit has not been forfeited and, hence, the petitioner cann ot be disqualified on the ground on which a person, whose earnest money deposits stand forfeited, can be disqualified. In view of what had been submitted above, it would remain open for the Technical Committee, while examining the bid, to decide as to whether or not the petition er’s earnest money deposit has or has not been forfeited and if so, what consequ ential effect or bearing the same shall have on the decision making process of t he Technical bid of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s bid, according to the respondents, is being considered along with other bidders, as indicated above, this writ petiti on cannot proceed until the time a decision is taken by the Technical Committee constituted by the FCI, in the matter, as regards the eligibility of the bidders including the petitioner. Situated thus, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the responden ts, particularly, respondent Nos.1 to 6, that the petitioner’s bids in respect o f item Nos.2, 3 and 4, as mentioned in the Adhoc Tender Notice, dated 22.09.2010 , aforementioned, shall be considered in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. With the above observation and directions this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall remain at liberty to take recourse to appropriate provision s of law for remedy of his grievances, if any, with regard to withholding of ear nest money deposit by the FCI. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel representing the F.C.I.