JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved with the impugned judgment of the High Court, which disqualified the appellant for reason of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) having been provided by way of a Fixed Deposit (FD), when it was mandatory for out of State bidders to submit EMD in the form of Demand Draft (DD). The High Court also followed a judgment of that Court, which on identical conditions found the submission of a DD mandatory for out of State bidders.

3. Sri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would point out that the furnishing of EMD by a DD was optional and the appellant had furnished a FD in the name of the Tendering Authority itself. The finding that furnishing of a DD was mandatory is not borne out from the specific terms of the tender document and even the Committee which scrutinizes the tenders had found the appellant to be qualified. There was a subsequent disqualification made by the Tendering Authority which, however, was not responded to within 48 hours’ time granted, since the appellant was already disqualified by the High Court. It is prayed that if this Court finds in favour of the appellant, th