IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.12888 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 25.4.2008 M/s Gyan Security Press (P) Ltd ....Petitioner(s) through Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondent(s) through Shri Amol Rattan, Addl.A.G, Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .*.*. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 4. VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This petition was filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, seeking a direction for quashing order dated 22.6.2007 (Annexure P.9) passed by respondent No.2 and the notice inviting tenders published on 27.7.2007 (Annexure P.14) with further directions to accept the tender given by the petitioner on February 09, 2007 as per the acceptance letter dated May 31, 2007. The brief controversy in this matter was delineated in our order dated 25.1.2008, however, to recapitulate, it may be mentioned that it was case of the petitioner that he was printing lotteries for the respondents for the last six years. On 9.2.2007, the tenders were opened for providing printing work. The petitioner was found successful as the rate quoted by the petitioner was lowest. The letter with regard to the acceptance of the tender was to be communicated by the respondents within a reasonable time. It is the case of the petitioner that his tender was the lowest, after opening of the tender on 9.2.2007, and this fact was not communicated to the petitioner. It was also not communicated to the petitioner that rate of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondents. Confronted with our query that when the petitioner's rates were lowest, why the acceptance letter was not issued to CWP.NO.12888 of 2007 #2# the petitioner, the respondents took the plea that there was no Director, Lottery Department, Punjab functioning at that time, as the incumbent had gone for training, therefore, acceptance letter could not be issued. We failed to understand that if the Director had gone on leave either for training or for other purposes, Department of Lottery was not shut down. There were other officers, who were working in the Department of Lottery and if the petitioner's rates were lowest, the acceptance letter of the petitioner ought to have been issued with promptitude. However, ultimately letter of acceptance of the work was issued to the petitioner on 31.5.2007 giving the petitioner five days time to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.40 lacs. The problem started here. Within the period of five days, the petitioner could not furnish the bank guarantee and prayed for grant of extension for furnishing the same. Respondents granted extension till 22.6.2007. However, by that also, the petitioner could not furnish the bank guarantee. On account of failure of furnishing bank guarantee till 22.6.2007, respondents forfeited the earnest money of Rs.16 lacs, which was lying deposited with the respondents. It is this action of the respondents, which has been impugned before us by the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly deposited the bank guarantee on 28.6.2007. We had, at that stage, asked the learned counsel for the respondents that if the letter of acceptance was given on 31.5.2007, then under what provisions of contract, the petitioner was allowed to work continuously from 9.2.2007 onward if no concluded in contract came into existence. There is no reply, which could satisfy this Court. Having allowed the petitioner to continue to work from 9.2.2007 without issuing an acceptance letter and merely forfeiting Rs.16 lacs because there was delay of couple of days, cannot be said to be justified from any angle. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner was doing the work from 9.2.2007 without acceptance letter and without bank guarantee being insisted by the respondents, which ultimately was deposited on 28.6.2007, forfeiture of earnest money was totally unwarranted and illegal. Same is quashed. Petition is allowed to this extent. Shri Amol Rattan has submitted that the petitioner shall be allowed to work till 31.5.2008. Prior to that fresh tenders for the next CWP.NO.12888 of 2007 #3# financial year shall be floated. The petitioner will be eligible to participate in the tendering process. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE April 25, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE