1 WP No.604/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.604/2011 Sardar Amriksingh Sardar Jernelsingh Bal, one of the Partner of Partnership firm M/s HPR Transport Company Dattanagar, Near Over-bridge, Hingoli Road, Tq. And Dist. Nanded. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Collector, Nanded. 3) The Additional Collector, Nanded. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Kiran M.Nagarkar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VH Dighe,AGP for Respondents. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) Forfeiture of earnest amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner, by order of learned Additional Collector, Nanded dated 16.3.2007, was carried to the learned Minister, Food & Civil 2 WP No.604/2011 Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mumbai and by order dated 27.11.2009, the learned Minster confirmed the order of forfeiture, consequently the present writ petition. 3) The petitioner has applied, as per the tender terms, for intra-district transportation of essential commodities (food grains). The tender conditions illustrate, a Certificate of revenue capacity of Rs.50,00,000/-; bank guarantee of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- as security deposit and thereafter an agreement was to be entered into. The petitioner, by his communication, informed the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, dated 20.11.2006 that the conditions are rigorous/stringent in its nature and, therefore, he is not in a position to comply its mandate and he has urged to relax the tender conditions. Even otherwise, there was no such transportation work in inter-district from Nanded and it would not be feasible for the petitioner to invest such huge amount. 4) Learned AGP submits, after the petitioner submitted his tender on two occasions, he was informed by the Collector to comply with the requirements/conditions, however, since the petitioner failed to comply, the learned Additional Collector passed an order of forfeiture of earnest amount on 16th March, 2007. Learned AGP further submits, this order is in tune with the condition incorporated/set out in 3 WP No.604/2011 Para 26(10) of the Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2006, which authorizes the Government to forfeit an earnest amount, if the tenderer/contractor does not comply with the requisitions after approval within seven days. 5) A public interest litigation, by way of Writ Petition No.4911/2006, was moved before the Nagpur Bench. Considering the legal position, hardship and the situation, including judicial intervention, the Division Bench of this Court, quashed and set aside the Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2006 and the State Government was permitted to re-formulate its policy after following prescribed procedure and considering all pros and cons of the matter. 6) Even if the order dated 16.3.2007 of the Collector, forfeiting the earnest amount of the petitioner, is prior in time to the order of the Division Bench dated 4th April, 2007, the fact remains that the learned Minister was aware of such Government Resolution or decision dated 5th August, 2006 being quashed and set aside and it was not in existence. Consequently, it was not expected on the part of the Government to reinforce with the same tender conditions and harp on tender condition No. 26(10) when its enforcement itself was declared to be illegal and it was set aside. 7) Though initially it was seen that the petition raises several disputed questions of fact, however, on analyzing 3-4 documents, it is clear, 4 WP No.604/2011 the petitioner could not be branded to be at fault and does require any evidence to be adduced to establish his claims and contentions. Consequently, the order of the learned Collector dated 16.3.2007 or of the learned Minister, being not flowing in tune with the record, calls for interference and in the writ jurisdiction, the order of the learned Minister is set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/