Petitioner filed writ under Articles 226 and 227 seeking refund of forfeiture amount of EMD and security deposit. Court held that since forfeiture was validly invoked due to non-execution of work, the representation for refund is not maintainable. Petition rejected.
None. Petition for refund of EMD and security deposit rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.111045/2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
ASHRAF KHAN S. PATHAN, MANAGING PARTNER, A-KAY CONSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERS & PWD CLASS-I CONTRACTOR, 2ND FLOOR, EUREKA JUNCTION, TRAVELLERS BUNGLOW ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI V HOSMANI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE NOTICE DATED 06.10.2018 AND TO REFUND EMD RS.1,36,000/- (ONE LAKH THIRTY SIX THOUSAND ONLY) AND SECURITY DEPOSIT TOTAL AMOUNT RS.4,10,711/-(FOUR LAKH TEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN ONLY) AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.5,46,711/- (FIVE LAKH FORTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN ONLY) WITH 24% INTEREST UPTO DATE VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to consider the notice dated 06.10.2018, wherein the petitioner requested for refund of EMD of Rs.1,36,000/- and Security Deposit of Rs.4,10,711/- totally amounting to Rs.5,46,711/- from the respondents.
3
of the partner of A-Kay Constructions Engineers and PWD Class-I Contractor. He was successful bidder for Civil Tender to execute drinking water supply project under Rajeev Gandhi Sub-Mission Project. He was entrusted with execution of work amounting to Rs.1,67,50,000/-. Work order was issued on 30.07.2008. For the reasons best known to the petitioner work was not executed. The first respondent by Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2012 at Annexure-D invoking tender Clause 2 A, B, C, D and 3 A, B, C forfeited EMD and Security Deposit at his risk and cost. The petitioner has not challenged the said order. Subsequently, the petitioner on 06.10.2018 submitted representation requesting payment of EMD, Security Deposit and compensation.
4
entrusted with execution of proving water supply work. Annexure-D would indicate that as the petitioner failed to execute the work, invoking the tender clauses, EMD and Security Deposits were forfeited. The petitioner has admittedly not challenged the said order. In view of the forfeiture of EMD amount and Security Deposit, representations seeking refund of EMD and Security Deposit would not be maintainable. The petitioner has no right for consideration of the said representation in view of the forfeiture of EMD and Security Deposit under Annexure-D dated 10.09.2012. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
Sh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking refund of forfeited EMD and security deposit is maintainable when the forfeiture was based on non-foresight of work execution.
Whether the petitioner has a right to reconsideration of representation for refund after forfeiture was invoked.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashraf Khan S. Pathan
The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Dharwad
The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Circle, Dharwad
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad
The Executive Engineer, Rural Drinking Water Supply & SanitATION, Dharwad
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
