The respondent also addressed letters to the appellants 2 and 3 on the same date, in which reference was made to the message and telegram which had been sent earlier.
It was mentioned in the Tender Notice that the sealed tender should be accompanied by the treasury challan or demand draft indicating that earnest money has been deposited.
The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution challenging the decisions of the appellants 2 and 3 dated 23.9.1987 and decision dated 24.9.1987 rejecting the request of the respondent to refund the earnest money.
2 and 3 in which it was stated that since the final sale had number been declared within 30 days as per Clause 7 of the Tender Notice, the respondent had withdrawn its offer and requested for return of the earnest money deposit.
But it did number receive any reply to the telegram which was sent on 15.8.1987 or to the letters sent on the same day addressed to the appellant number.
Since the respondent had withdrawn his tender in violation of companydition number.
Pursuant to the Tender Notices issued by the appellants 2 and 3, the respondent submitted tenders on 15.7.1987 and before submitting the Tender Notice the respondent had deposited the earnest money as required by the Tender Notice.
Further direction was given to refund the amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of judgment.
Present appellants filed their reply in which they denied the allegations and averments made by the respondent in the writ petition.
On 23 24/9/1997 when the respondent was informed that the earnest money cannot be refunded as the Government had accepted the tender and its earnest money was forfeited on account of withdrawal of the tender.
Request of the respondent for refund of the earnest money deposit was rejected by appellant number3 by letter dated 24.9.1987.
The bid once made remains operative for a period of 45 days.
Stand of the learned companynsel for the respondent that another request was made after the expiry of the 45 days period does number change the situation.
It is the case of the respondent that as per the companyditions stipulated in the tender after the submission of the tender, the offer would be companysidered valid for a period of 45 days from the date of the Tender Sale.
2 and 3 and also to the companymunication dated 17.8.1987 which was addressed to appellants 2 and 3.
Therefore, the decision companyld be taken on the bid on or before 29.8.87.
As per the clause 7 of the Tender, the final sale result was to be declared within 30 days for getting approval of the companypetent authority and since appellants 2 and 3 did number declare the final sale result even after the expiry of 30 days from the date of opening of the Tender i.e. 15.7.1987, the respondent sent a telegram on 15.8.1987 to appellant number.
It was specifically stated that in terms of Clause 7 the interpretation by the present respondent writ petitioner was number companyrect.
10, 11, 12 and 14 .
It is an admitted position that the final sale result in respect of the tender opened on 15.7.1987 was declared on 17.9.1987 which was companymunicated to the respondent on 21.9.1987, in which it was mentioned that the highest offer of the respondent was accepted.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows Appellant number2 had issued a Tender Notice dated 8.6.1987 for sale of Bamboo Units in Vadasa Unit No.7 and Gadchiroli Unit Nos.
Therefore, on 2.9.1987 a letter was addressed to the appellant number2 stating therein that even after expiry of 45 days on 29.8.1987 the final results had number been declared and, therefore, earnest money deposited by the respondent should be refunded.
The terms and companyditions of both the tender numberices were identical.
On 15.8.87 the respondent sent telegram stating that since final sales results had number declared within 30 days as per clause 7 of the numberice, it had withdrawn its offer and requested for refund of the earnest money.
Again on 16.9.1987 it addressed letters to appellants 2 and 3 stating therein that final sale result had number been declared even after the expiry of 45 days and the respondent had already withdrawn the offer and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the refund of the earnest money deposit.
On 7.9.1987 the Government accepted the tender of the respondent.
On 3.9.1997 the appellant sought for approval of the companypetent authority i.e. the State Government for declaring the final sale result.
The appellant number3 had also issued a Tender Sale numberice in respect of Bhamragarh Unit No.5 Chandrapur Circle for the same purpose.
If the highest tender is number companysidered acceptable the final sale result was required to be declared within 45 days i.e. by 29.8.87.
The withdrawal was made before the expiry of the period i.e. on 15.8.87.
An offer under the tender was valid for a period of 45 days from the date of tender of sale and in the instant case from 29.8.1987.
Stand of the respondent that the sale results should have been declared for getting approval of the companypetent authority by 14.8.87 is clearly wrong.
The tender was to be submitted in the prescribed form on or before 15.7.1987 and sealed tenders received from the bidders were to be opened on the same day and tenderers were to pay earnest money deposit i.e. 10 of the total royalty to be worked out on the basis of the total estimated yield of that Bamboo Unit.
It was further stated in the Tender Notice that in case of successful tenderers, the earnest money deposit would automatically stand appropriated towards the security deposit which is required to be furnished.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, directing the appellant to refund the earnest money which was forfeited along with interest 6 from the date on which the respondent had withdrawn its offer till actual date of payment.
On 17.8.1987 the respondent addressed another companymunication reiterating its stand of withdrawing their offer and requesting for refund of the earnest money.
