CW 11275/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11275/2008 Bajrang Lal Panwar Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 06/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajendra Arora, for petitioner Mr. JM Saxena, for respondent No.2 to 4 Mr. SN Kumawat, Addl.Adv. Gen., for respondent State Vide order dt.27/11/08, this Court observed to dispose of matter finally at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.23/09/08 (Ann.4) of cancelling the bid. Respondent NO.3 invited tenders vide NIT dt.02/08/08 (Ann.1) for collection of tax at check-post referred to therein for a period of one year with approximate annual revenue collection of Rs.504 lacs, for which earnest money of Rs.17.12. Lacs was to be deposited by bidder to participate in reference to NIT (Ann.1) and pursuant to which, tender documents were opened as per Schedule on 21/08/2008; and as alleged, petitioner having offered lowest commission rate for collection requisite annual revenue turn-over, he was called upon to deposit security amount of Rs.42 lacs as per Cl.18 of terms & condition of NIT (Ann.1) vide letter dt.21/08/08 (Ann.2) in pursuance CW 11275/08 //2// whereof, requisite amount of Rs.forty two lacs was deposited vide receipt dt.23/08/08 (Ann.3). However, respondents issued letter of cancelling his bid on 23/09/08 (Ann.4), wherein since no reasons were assigned, petitioner rushed to this Court by way of instant petition; and while issuing notices vide order dt.21/10/08 this Court directed respondents to proceed with fresh tender proceedings initiated vide notification dt. 13/10/08 but shall not be finalised. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the security amount in pursuance to his bid being lowest and accepted by respondents was deposited with respondents, there was no justification available to cancel the same and that too without assigning reasons therefor. Counsel further submits that once petitioner has complied with conditions as per terms of NIT (Ann.1), there was a legitimate expectation that respondents would carry out its obligation; and cancellation at a later stage was wholly arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel further submits that respondents have cancelled his bid vide letter dt.23/09/08 (Ann.4); while at the same time, money deposited way back vide receipt dt.23/08/08 (Ann.3) has not yet been refunded and certainly he is entitled to CW 11275/08 //3// interest over the money deposited but withheld by respondents even after cancellation of his bid as his rights have been prejudiced only on account of arbitrary action of respondents. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that before calling upon petitioner to deposit security amount in terms of NIT (ANN.1), there was an amendment in R.44 of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 vide notification dt. 20/08/08, whereby since major changes took place, the Commissioner considered it appropriate that fresh tender may be invited taking note of amendment in the Scheme of Rules, 2006. Counsel for the Revenue submits that apart from amendments (supra), no right was conferred merely on depositing security amount as called upon by respondents vide letter dt.21/08/08 (Ann.2), since as per condition No.46 of NIT (Ann.1), powers vested with Commissioner to accept recommendations of the committee and in absence of any acceptance made by competent authority, no right could be said to have conferred upon petitioner; in such circumstances, no error has been committee taking note of change in Scheme of Rules, 2006. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, CW 11275/08 //4// examined material on record. According to terms & conditions of NIT (Ann.1), particular Cl.46, recommendations made by the Committee are to be finally approved by Commissioner Commercial Taxes. Indisputably, Commissioner has not approved recommendations made by Committee and as regards security amount deposited by petitioner, it is a part of procedure before the matter was to be placed for seeking approval as per Cl.18 of NIT document (Ann.1) and once the authority took note of amendments made U/r 44 of the Rules vide notification dt.20/08/08 issued under Rajasthan Value Added Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008 – reference whereof has been made in the order sheet also placed by petitioner on record as Annexure 7, this Court is of the opinion that the authority was within its competence to take final decision and no right could be said to have conferred merely on the premise of depositing security money in terms of NIT (Ann.1) in pursuance of respondent's letter dt.21/08/08 (Ann.2). However, submission made by Counsel for petitioner that reasons have not been assigned while passing order of cancellation impugned, and at the same time, on deposit of security money, petitioner has legitimate expectation that the CW 11275/08 //5// rest is the formality to be complied with, is also bereft of merit for the reason that powers are vested with Commissioner, who if has not finally approved, question of any right or plea of legitimate expectation, as submitted by petitioner does not arise for consideration.; and being administrative matters, reasons for rejection are not required to be disclosed at least while passing order of cancelling the bid unless provided under law. However, when matter comes up for judicial review, they are supposed to disclose that the authority while passing the order impugned has applied its mind; otherwise it may cause prejudice to either of parties. In instant case, as per order sheet (Ann.7) placed by petitioner on record certainly discloses that what was weighing in the mind of the authority was the amendment particularly in R.44, which certainly changes the situation – as a consequence whereof, if the authority took the decision to cancel the bid irrespective of calling upon petitioner to deposit security money. This Court does not find any error in the action of respondents impugned, warranting interference. However, submission made by Counsel for petitioner that once amount was deposited and CW 11275/08 //6// respondents have cancelled his tender bid, whatever amount deposited by him must be refunded alongwith interest, it has substance and in the absence of any material on record by which it can be inferred that amount deposited by petitioner was ever offered by respondents at any point of time to refund even pendente lis, is certainly entitled for interest thereon. Consequently, writ petition is hereby disposed of with the direction that while upholding cancellation of tender bid offered by petitioner vide order dt.23/09/08, respondents are directed to refund amount of Rs.Forty two lacs duly deposited by him alongwith earnest money with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till its actual payment. Respondents shall ensure refund to the petitioner on or before 27/03/09 failing amount due shall carry further interest @ 10% per annum. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/11275CW08Mar6.doc