THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.NO.33018 OF 2010 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in not releasing the amount of Rs.4,900/-paid towards earnest money deposit in respect of tender bearing No.2/2006/E-proc/309/06/E2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.4,900/- forth with. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on its business of supply of survey, scientific & electrical equipments for the last 20 years to various Government and private sector departments. A e-procurement notice bearing No.2/2006/E-proc/309/06/E2 was put on web site by the respondent-Municipality for supply of S.V.Bulbs and Chokes, Ignitors for maintenance of Street Light. The petitioner submitted its tender along with earnest money deposit of Rs.4,900/-. But the tender was not accepted by the respondent as the petitioner did not submit the required certificates demanded by the respondent by its Notice dated 11-12-2006 within time. As per Rule 18(3) of Municipalities (Tender) Rules, 1967, when tender of the petitioner has not been accepted, the Commissioner shall have to make arrangements for the refund of earnest money deposit within one month from the date of receipt of an application from any tenderer unless it has been forfeited under Clause (ix) of sub rule (2) of Rule 4. The petitioner already submitted its application for refund of earnest money deposit long back and also letter on 21- 12-2009. But there is no response from the respondent. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the tender of the petitioner has not been accepted by the respondent, the respondent has to make arrangements for the refund of earnest money deposit within one month from the date of receipt of an application from any tenderer. He further submits that the petitioner already submitted its application and also letter on 21-12-2009. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that appropriate decision will be taken by the respondent on the representation of the petitioner. In this case, though the petitioner submitted its tender, but the same has not been accepted by the respondent on the premise that the petitioner did not submit required documents within time. Therefore, petitioner made an application for refund of the earnest money deposit, but no action has been taken by the respondent and that the application is made within the time prescribed under the tender conditions. Therefore, the respondent has to take appropriate decision for refund of the earnest money deposit. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take appropriate decision for refund of the earnest money deposit and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J rkk Dated: 16-11-2011