The Court allowed the writ petition seeking refund of the Earnest Money Deposit after the tender award was cancelled. It held the government's undertaking to refund negates the limitation bar.
Respondents directed to return the Earnest Money Deposit within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.
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 KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6486 of 2016 (I)
PETITIONER(S):
DELTA AGGREGATES AND SAND PVT. LTD CHITTAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THOMAS PHILIP.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI - 600 001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS), DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WORKS BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 6486 of 2016 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.6486 of 2016-I.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was the successful bidder in a tender of
the Southern Railway for collection and supply of track ballast. Though a supply order was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the tender, the award was later cancelled. The decision of the Railway in cancelling the award was though quashed by this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner was not issued supply order even thereafter. Consequently, the petitioner could not effect the supply of the materials pursuant to the tender. According to the petitioner, in the circumstances, they requested
the respondents to return the Earnest Money Deposit made by the petitioner for the tender. It is alleged that the respondents are not returning the Earnest Money Deposit made by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
2
WP(C).No.6486/2016-I.
respondents contending mainly that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation.
respondents in Ext.P7 case. Paragraph 7 of Ext.P9 counteraffidavit reads thus:
“It is submitted that the condition of tender also reserve the right to the Administration to reject the tender at any point of time. It is again submitted that the respondents are willing to refund the EMD for the mistake done by the administration.”
In so far as it was undertook by the respondents in Ext.P7 case that the Earnest Money Deposit made by the petitioner will be returned to them, according to me, the respondents are not entitled to contend that the said claim raised in the writ petition is barred by limitation. In the said view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the Earnest Money Deposit made by the petitioner for the tender referred to in Ext.P7 case, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
WP(C).No.6486/2016-I.
3
this judgment.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for refund of Earnest Money Deposit is barred by limitation given the undertaking in a prior quashed order.
Whether the respondents are directed to return the Earnest Money Deposit filed by the petitioner.
Delta Aggregates and Sand Pvt. Ltd.
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai
The Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Thiruvananthapuram
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
