IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2507 of 2011 M/s Balaji Transport through its partner Sri Parvesh Babbar, Old Punjab Rice Mill Compound, Kashipur Road, Bhurarani Mod, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ….Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ..Respondents Present : Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The Food Corporation of India invited tenders for lifting of food grains from one place to another. The petitioner responded to the said tender notice. The bid of the petitioner being lowest was accepted, however, as per the condition stipulated in the tender notice, the petitioner had to deposit the security deposit and a bank guarantee within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the bid. The bid of the petitioner was admittedly accepted on 22.8.2011. According to the petitioner, it was communicated to him only on 26.8.2011. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner had to submit the security deposit and a bank guarantee on or before 10.9.2011. The petitioner failed to do so and admittedly wrote a letter to the authority to extend the period of depositing the bank guarantee. This application the petitioner gave to the respondent on 16.11.2011 and thereafter on 17.11.2011. However, on 18.11.2011 his contract was summarily terminated under Clause IX (d) of the tender notice, which reads as under : “IX. Security Deposit (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) In the event of the Tenderer failure, after the communication of acceptance of the tender by the Corporation, to furnish the requisite Security Deposit by the due date, his Contract shall summarily terminated besides forfeiture of the Ernest Money and the Corporation shall proceed for appointment of another contractor. Any losses or damages arising out of an incurred by the Corporation by such conduct of the contractor will be recovered from the contractor, without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the Corporation under the Contract and Law. The contractor will also be debarred from participating in any future tenders of the Corporation for a period of three years. After the completion of prescribed period of three years, the party may be allowed to participate in the future tenders of FCI provided all the recoveries/dues have been effected by the Corporation and there is no dispute pending with the contractor/party.” 4. The Food Corporation of India has invoked its power under Clause IX (d) of the tender notice and terminated the contract vide order dated 18.11.2011. It is this order which is under challenge by means of the present writ petition. 5. Admittedly in the tender notice, it is a condition stipulated that within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the bid, the tenderer shall have to furnish the security deposit in shape of a bank guarantee, which the petitioner admittedly failed to do. This Court cannot go into the reasons as to what prohibited the petitioner from complying with the stipulated conditions. Hence, this Court does not find any fault with the order dated 18.11.2011 by which the contract has been rejected. 6. Writ petition, therefore, fails and stands dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.12.2011 Avneet