WP(C) 1559/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. SN Sarma, lear ned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. None appears for the respondent No. 1. The name of respondent No.2 has already been struck off v ide order passed in Misc. case No. 474/2003. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, though, has challenged the notice inviting tender dated 21.2.2003 with a further direction to settle the work of c onstruction of Assam type school building, 21 residential houses along with sani tation, water supply, internal electrification and the development work for Kend riya Vidyalaya at Amerigog, Guwahati on the basis of the tender paper submitted by him pursuant to the first notice inviting tender dated 11.10.2002, Mr. Nair l earned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not pre ss the said prayer and instead press for directing the respondent authorities, m ore particularly the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, to consider his prayer for refund o f the earnest money of Rs. 1.15 lakhs, which he had deposited along with his ten der papers submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 11.10.2002, without being influen ced by the decision as reflected in the communication dated 28.2.2003 issued by the Executive Engineer, MP Housing Board, Division Katni (Annexure-R5 to the Mis c. Case No. 590/2003 filed by the respondent No. 3). According to the petitioner, pursuant to the NIT dated 11.10.2002 he submitted h is tender for the aforesaid work, inadvertently quoting 19.99% above the schedul ed rate, for which, as there could not be any overwriting in the tender papers, he on the same date of submission of the tender papers, along with the tender pa pers, submitted a letter quoting the rate offered by him as 29.99% above the sch eduled rate instead of 19.99%. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 23. 10.2002 when the tender papers were opened and the comparative statement was pre pared, the petitioner’s offer of 29.99% above the scheduled rate was found to be the lowest offer which has been incorporated in the comparative statement. Howe ver, according to the petitioner, the respondent authorities vide communication dated 11.12.2002 informed the petitioner about the acceptance of his offer but a t the rate calculated on the basis 19.99% above the scheduled rate instead of 29 .99%, for which he filed an application on 30.12.2002 for necessary correction w hich was rejected by the respondent authority vide communication dated 10.2.2003 . The respondent authorities thereafter issued a fresh NIT on 21.2.2003, which g ave rise to the present petition. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the respondents, the respondent No. 4 filed a Misc. application being Misc. case No. 590/2003 spellin g out their stand in the writ petition and also for vacating the interim order d ated 4.3.2003 passed in the writ petition. In the said Misc. application, the su bmission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has been recorded in the order dated 23.5.2003 to the effect that the petitioner was no more interested in the work and his prayer is limited to the issue of direction to the responden ts to refund the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 1.15 lakhs deposited by him al ong with the tender papers submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 11.10.2002 with a further direction not to debar the petitioner from participating in future tend er process. This Court vide order dated 23.5.2003 after noticing such submission of the lear ned counsel for the petitioner has allowed the respondent authorities to go ahea d with the tender process initiated vide the NIT dated 21.2.2003 which has been challenged in the said writ petition. It appears from the communication dated 28.2.2003 issued by the Executive Engine er, MP Housing Board, respondent No. 4 (Annexure-R5 to the Misc. Case No. 590/20 03) that the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 1.15 lakhs deposited by the petiti oner has been forfeited by invoking clause No. 7.1.1 of the NIT dated 11.20.2002 . It is, however, apparent from the said communication that the contention of th e petitioner that he offered 29.99% above the scheduled rate, which according to the petitioner has been reflected in the comparative statement prepared by the authority, has not been taken into consideration by the authority before passing such order. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 ha s submitted that in case the petitioner files an application praying for refund of the said earnest money to the tune of Rs. 1.15 lakhs, the same shall definite ly be reconsidered by the authority by taking into account all the relevant fact ors. Mr. Sarma further submits no decision for blacklisting the petitioner has b een taken by the authority till now and in the event such decision is proposed t o be taken the petitioner would definitely be given notice. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the observat ion that the petitioner may approach the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by means of a r epresentation for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 1.15 lakhs deposited by him along with the tender papers submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 11.10.2002 and in the event of filing such representation the same shall be considered and dis posed of within a period of two months from the date of filing such representati on, by passing necessary order after taking into account the contention of the p etitioner that he along with the tender papers pursuant to the NIT dated 11.10.2 002 also by separate application indicated that his offer was 29.99% above the s cheduled rate and the same was reflected in the comparative statement prepared o n 23.10.2002. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order tha t may be passed, it is open to him to take such legal course as available to him . Relating to the contention of the petitioner for issuance of direction not to bl acklist the petitioner, in view of the submission made the learned senior counse l as noticed above, no direction is called for. The writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.