THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24284 of 2007 ORDER: The respondents issued a tender notice dated 23.04.2007 for selecting an agency to lay road in Pragathinagar, Nellore Municipal Corporation. The petitioner submitted his tender and he was declared as L.1. However, the work was not allotted to him. A notice, dated 06.11.2007, was served upon the petitioner stating that he has suppressed certain information, while submitting the tender. Even before the time for submission of the explanation expired, the respondents issued fresh tender, on the same work, on 12.11.2007. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that though the petitioner emerged as L.1, in pursuance of the tender, dated 23.04.2007, information was received from the Authority, who processed the tenders, to the effect that the enquiry into the complaint against the petitioner is pending, before the A.P. Lokayuktha and Director of Vigilance and Enforcement. It is stated that the further correspondence revealed that no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner at all. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Though the petitioner emerged as L.1, in the process initiated through the tender notice, dated 23.04.2007, the contract was not awarded to him. On the basis of an information to the effect that enquiry against the petitioner is pending before the A.P. Lokayuktha, a show cause notice was also served upon him on 08.11.2007. However, four days thereafter, fresh tender notice was issued, which implies that the earlier tender notice stood cancelled. The petitioner did not participate in the fresh tender notice, dated 12.11.2007. His present grievance is only about refund of the EMD, deposited while submitting tender, in response to the tender notice, dated 23.04.2007. Even from the averments in the counter- affidavit, it is clear that the respondents did not execute the contract in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of a wrong information. By the time, it was realized that the information received against the petitioner was wrong, fresh tender notice was already issued and agency was selected, in pursuance of the tender notice, dated 12.11.2007. The petitioner shall be entitled to be refunded the EMD. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing the respondents to refund the EMD paid by the petitioner, in pursuance of the tender, dated 24.03.2007, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within that time, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which it became due, till the date of payment. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.02.2011. GJ