The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.21815 of 2003 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents in forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by him by way of Demand Draft No.811635, dated 10-04-2003, and intimating the s a m e vide letter, dated 6th August, 2003, issued in proceedings No.B/C.300/CS/BZA-FOB-RYPS/Staff/03-05, as illegal and arbitrary. The respondent-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, has called for three separate tenders for allotment of earmarked spaces for cycle/scooter stand at Vijayawada-East, Vijayawada-West and Vijayawada-FOB. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner had offered his bid at Rs.36,09,999/-, Rs.8,05,009/- and Rs.16,01,999/- respectively for Vijayawada-East, Vijayawada-West and Vijayawada-FOB for two years period. So far as Vijayawada-East and Vijayawada-West are concerned, it is not in dispute that Earnest Money Deposits were refunded as the respondent has discharged the tender on the ground that the petitioner did not quote higher amount than the estimated values. So far as Vijayawada-FOB is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that he did not receive any intimation accepting his bid within the stipulated period, and as such, he made representation on 19-07-2003, but the respondent, without considering the same issued proceedings No.B/C.300/CS/BZA-FOB- TYPS/Staff/03-05, dated 06-08-2003 forfeiting the EMD of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by him. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner did not receive any communication as regards acceptance of his bid in respect of Vijayawada- FOB, there are no reasons for forfeiting the EMD of Rs.1 lakh deposited by him. The respondent-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of South Central Railway, Vijayawada, filed a detailed counter narrating the facts leading to refund of Earnest Money Deposit with regard to the tenders relating to the cycle/scooter stand contracts of Vijayawada-East and Vijayawada-West. So far as the tender relating to the Cycle/Scooter stand contract of Vijayawada-FOB is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner’s offer for Rs.16,01,999/- for a period of two years was accepted by the competent authority and accordingly, license was offered to the petitioner vide letter No.B/C 300/CS/BZA- FOB/2003-2005, dated 03-06-2003, advising the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,03,398/- within a period of seven days towards first year license fee + balance security deposit + conservancy charges. It is further stated that when the said letter was sent by registered post, the same was returned with a postal endorsement as “the party absent on 4-6-2003 and 5-6-2003.” It is further stated that when registered cover was returned on 13-06-2003, the competent authority has deputed a Commercial Inspector to hand over the letter of acceptance personally and the said Inspector also could not deliver the same and returned the undelivered letter to the competent authority along with his report. It is further stated that a further attempt was also made by sending the same by registered post, but again it was returned with a postal endorsement that “absent on 7- 7-2003 and intimation on 08-07-2003.” During the course of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has produced a record. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that attempts were made by the respondent to send the acceptance letter to the address furnished by the petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he was not available in the station as he was attending to his ailing son at Hyderabad in the NIMS, but the report, dated 27-06-2003, filed by the Senior Chief Commercial Inspector, South Central Railway, Vijayawada (Section) falsifies the same. In the report, the Officer, deputed to serve the letter of acceptance to the petitioner, stated that the petitioner was available in the house, but in spite of his attempts to serve, there was no response from the petitioner to receive the same. He also stated that though he has furnished his cell number with the inmates of the petitioner, petitioner has even failed to contact him through telephone. If the endorsements on the postal covers are considered with reference to the contents of report, dated 27-06-2003, it is clear that after submission of the bid, petitioner avoided to receive the acceptance letter sent by the respondent. Though a vague statement is made in the affidavit that representatives of the petitioner have visited the office of the respondent, but no dates have been given therein. Inasmuch as the petitioner, having responded to the tender, failed to deposit the amount as per the tender conditions, respondent has rightly forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.1 lakh. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 20th November, 2009 lur