IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.2266 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 M/s Malik Traders. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 8. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter of acceptance dated 26.11.2008 of bid of the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.III, PWD (B&R), Karnal and subsequent actions including letter dated 17.12.2008, forfeiting the security of the petitioner for the amount of Rs.20 lacs. 2. Case of the petitioner is that Tender Notice dated 18.9.2008 was issued inviting tenders for collection of toll at toll point near Yamuna river on Karnal-Meerut road. On opening of CWP No.2266 of 2009 the tenders, M/s Gaurav Traders was found to be successful and letter of acceptance was issued in its favour. On its failure to deposit performance security and first instalment, its security was forfeited. Thereafter, there was proposal to allot the work to the petitioner, vide recommendations dated 21.10.2008 and thereafter, on 27.10.2008, a decision was taken to negotiate with the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to increase the bid. Before the matter could be finalised, the petitioner vide letter dated 15.11.2008, withdrew its offer, which was acknowledged vide letter dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-16), as averred in para 10 of the petition. However, vide letter dated 26.11.2008, bid of the petitioner was accepted and thereafter, the security deposited by the petitioner was forfeited, for failure of the petitioner to accept the performance of work. It is submitted that once the petitioner withdrew its offer, there could not be any acceptance thereafter and there could be no question of petitioner not honouring the commitment and being in default which could warrant forfeiture of security. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review could not be exercised in the matters of breach of contract. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa & anr. AIR 2007 SC 119. 2 CWP No.2266 of 2009 5. We do not find any merit in the objection raised. Case before us is no contract coming into force, offer having been withdrawn before acceptance. Even otherwise, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relied upon, does not lay down that judicial review is excluded when action of a public authority is irrational or arbitrary. In view of averments made in para 10 of the petition and corresponding reply in the written statement, it remains undisputed that the petitioner had withdrawn its offer. Thereafter, there could be no acceptance of offer nor any consequence of the petitioner not honouring the commitment. 7. Accordingly, we allow this petition, quash letter dated 26.11.2008, accepting the bid of the petitioner and letter dated 17.12.2008, forfeiting the security amount of Rs.20 lacs. Respondent No.5 will refund the amount of security of the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3