IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 37772 of 2007 (V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- CHETAN MOMAYA, 39 YEARS, S/O.JETHLAL MOMAYA, PROPRIETOR, PREETAN CORPORATION VI/1996, OMBATHUMURI, CHAKKAMADAM, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) RESPONDENT: ----------- THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 37772 OF 2007 V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to quash the tender that was awarded in pursuance to Ext. P1 tender-cum-auction notice. There is a further prayer to award the tender to the petitioner or in the alternative to return the EMD. 2. When the writ petition was taken up the counsel confined his request to the prayer for return of EMD. On that basis a statement was directed to be filed by the respondents also. From the submissions made and from the writ petition and the statement filed, what is seen is that the petitioner had responded to Ext. P1 tender-cum-auction notice by making offer to both the items tendered. He was the highest bidder for grease barrels. It is stated that the offer made by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was required to execute the agreement in compliance with the tender conditions. At that stage, petitioner withdrew from the fray and sought to get the EMD refunded. W.P.(C) No. 37772 OF 2007 - 2 - 3. The respondents would state that since the petitioner committed breach of contract as stated above, he is not entitled to get refund of the EMD that he had deposited. It is submitted that as per the terms of Ext.P1 once offer is made, a party has no right to withdraw the offer. 2. Having heard counsel for both sides, I am inclined to agree with the stand taken by the respondents. If, as a matter of fact the offer made by the petitioner was accepted, he should have proceeded to sign the agreement as required in the tender notice. By withdrawing from the tender, petitioner breach of the conditions of Ext.P1. As a result of this, the Corporation is entitled to forfeit the EMD in terms of the conditions of Ext.P1 tender. When the Corporation is invoking the tender conditions and is forfeiting the EMD this Court will not be justified in interfering with such decision of the Corporation. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-