Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8753/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8753 of 2011
=================================================
PIYUSHBHAI
A PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR JV JAPEE for Petitioner(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 14/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr J V Japee, learned counsel for the petitioner. This
petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting
aside the tender notice dated 19.5.2011 of block No.2 of sand of
Sabarmati River at Village Shitwada, Taluka Prantij, District
Sabarkantha. Respondent No.1 had advertised tender notice in
newspaper on 4.9.2010. The petitioner was the sole bidder and he has
complied with the terms of the tender documents and has deposited
Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.2,76,600/-. According to the petitioner,
he was assured by the respondent that the contract would be awarded
to him but ultimately the respondent has decided to readvertise the
tender as only one bid was received in response to the tender notice
dated 4.9.2010. The fresh tender notice was advertised on 19.5.2011.
According to the petitioner, he could not submit his tender in
pursuance of the fresh tender notice as his Earnest Money Deposit was
lying with the respondent as they have not refunded it. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has urged that now he is demanding refund
of the Earnest Money Deposit and no application was made for refund
of the same. He, therefore, prays that he may be permitted to enter
into re-bidding which has finally been closed. In pursuance of the
tender notice dated 19.5.2011, the bids have already been closed on
3.6.2011. The learned counsel has further urged that the tender bids
must have been opened and he does not know whether the tenders have
been opened or not. He therefore, prays that he may be permitted to
participate in the tender bid since the closing date of the tender
was 3.6.2011.
2. As
the closing date of the tender has expired, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to participate in the bid in pursuance of the tender notice
dated 19.5.2011. Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his Earnest Money
Deposit lying with the respondent may be directed to be refunded.
For this, he may make application to the concerned respondent, who
shall pass necessary order subject to the terms of the tender and
after following due procedures.
3. For
the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top