Single bidder Petitioner challenged a letter forfeiting his Earnest Money Deposit. The Court held forfeiture unjustified because a single bidder precludes fresh tender without cancellation, quashing the forfeiture order and directing refund.
Forth the order dated 19.06.2013 and directed the Opposite Parties to refund the amount within four months.
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 ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 13547 of 2013
Sk. Abdul Halim
….. Petitioner
Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate
Vs.
….. State of Odisha and others
Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
12.09.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Arun
of new bidder. In view of such position, the forfeiture of the EMD amount submitted by the Petitioner being a single bidder is not justified. Therefore, this Court quashes the order dated 19.06.2013 under Annexure-6 and directs the Opposite Parties to refund such amount to the Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tender document conditions are obligatory where only a single bidder participates.
Whether the deposit money can be forfeited when the bid was declared noticed and cancelled.
Sk. Abdul Halim
State of Odisha
B.R. Sarangi
Sanjay Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
