^•' i!=M~S f^ s ^lTU?. 'K PetliBcn (C5 No.2887 CT 2007 Suresh Kumar Agrawal A - V Ciass Contractor, ivi.P.P.VV.D., aged about 46 years; S/o Late Shri Cbhagan La! Agra'A'a], R/o Shua-Brchhia, Distt. ivfandla ('iyi.P.'i Throuah - Generai Pcwer of Attomsy Holder, Diiip Kumar Modi, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Lajpat Rai iVlodi, R/o Beh.'nd Bramhakumari Ashram, C.V. RamanWard, Seoni (M.P.) Versus 1. Go'.'t. of Chhatrisgarh through Secretan/, Fanchayat & Rurai Development Department, Dau Kaiyan Sing.h Bha'uan, Mantralaya, RaipOr (C.G.) 2. The Chief Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadsk Yojna, Rura! Road Deve'opment Agenoy, Cwi! Lines Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Executive Engineer - Cum Member Secreta.ry, Proj'ecf impiemeriiation Unit, Pradhan iVSanSri Gram Sadak Yojna, Distt. Rajnandgaon fC.G.) WntJ^tjtion U/A 22Qor tne Constitution of 'ndia. F'rsssMt.' ihri DN Prajapati, counse! for the petitioner. Sumesh Bajaj, GA.for.the State. issed an 2"a Mau '200 mav, The following ors! order o? the Court was psssed by -<-1.,, f^l f_ .(.;..*«; ^B;',.U3p , The petitioner is A-V Ctass Contractor in MP FWD. 'n this petition fi'ed. under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in tiie nature of certiorari to qua.sh tfte order passed by the 3 respondent ds.ted 05.01.2007. By the .mpugned order, the 3 respondent has forfeited the ea.mest mnnpv /-io-incif^r' ^;' th^ r*^'r'7"i/T^iS;r 1 i i\-'i *»>*•tf v-is/i^/"^^i i L</:*ui ^/y 4,1 1^-- E^S^/hl<-Ev^lti^/i< '\ '''5-. ^- (2) The iacts in nutshe!! are : The petitioner was ons ofthe partioipants In the tender process invited by the respondents. He had offered his &id and since his bid was the highest bid, the respondents have accepted the sarne and thersafter, they have Intimated ths petitioner to exscute the agreement as rsquired under c!ause 17.6 of the conditions of the tender form. Even afier expir/ of 90 dsys, since the petitioner c'id not sign the agreemsnt nor furnish the required performance securicy, the respondents have invoked c'ause 17.6 and hsve fcrfeited the earnest maney dsposited by the petitione'. Aggrieved by the said action of the responde-sts the petitioner is befo'e us in this writ petition. (3) Shri DN Prajapati, ieamed counsei appearing for t'ns petitioner '/.'ould submit that without granting time as envisaged under ciause 13.2 of the conditions of ths tsndsr form, the respondents could not have exercised.their right under ciauss 17.6 of the conditions of the Sender form. (4) Opening words of the c!ause 16.2 of ths conditions of tender form woujd say that it is on!y in exceptional circumstances prior to expiry of the onginal time limit, the empioyer may request the highest bidder to exSend the period ofvalidity for a specified add'tbnal period. !n our opinion. said ciause wouid not come in aid of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. in fact, ciause 17.S of the conditions of the tender form would envjsage that the earnest money may be forfeited by the person'who invites tender immediately after ths highest bicider is notined that his bid has bsen acoepted, and if ihe bidder fails wlthln the specified time iimit slther to sign the ag-eement or to furnlsh required perfbrmance certificate. (5) in the instant cass, after accepting the highest b;d offersd by the petitioner, the respondents have intimated the petltioner io slgn the agreement and since the peiitioner did not sign the agreemsnt within the time specmed, the third respondent has passed an order dated 05.01.2007. In our opinion, there !S no arbitran/ action on the part of the respondents, whlch vi?ou!d ca'! for our interference. Therefore, the wr!t petitiori requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordinoly. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Oiiip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge