The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of the tender notice in commercial transactions, and the court's interpretation of the General Clauses Act 1897, Section 10, regarding the deposit of additional performance security deposit within a prescribed period.

JUDGMENT :

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of both the sides.

2. The factual matrix is as under:

2(i) The petitioner / M/s. Tirupati Construction, Latur is a propitiatory firm engaged in construction work. Respondent No.2/ Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur had issued E-tender notice inviting tenders from the eligible contractors for construction of balance work of primary health centre, Wadwa, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. The petitioner has filled in E-tender along with earnest amount of Rs. 2,14,920/- and tender fees of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner has quoted an amount of Rs. 1,97,74,761.65 Ps. The Respondent No.5 has also filled in E-tender for the same work and quoted an amount of Rs. 2,10,81,473.43 Ps. On 17.04.2020, technical bids were opened by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and four tenders were qualified for commercial/financial bids. On same day, i.e. on 17.04.2020, the commercial/finance bids were opened and tender of the petitioner being lowest one was accepted. Whereas, remaining three tenders were rejected. As per the terms and conditions of E-tender notice, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- with respondent No.4 by Demand Draft towards additional performance security deposit and the same has been accepted and encashed by respondent No.4 on 27.04.2020. On 04.08.2020, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.4 and requested to issue work order so as to start tender work. On 01.09.2020, though the tender of the petitioner was accepted, all of sudden, respondent No.4 without communicating any thing to the petitioner, issued work order in favour of respondent No.5.

2(ii) According to the petitioner, due to pandemic situation of Covid-19, there was complete lock down in the Latur city in the month of April, 2020. There were restrictions on travelling. During the lock down period, the working hours of the Banks were also reduced. According to the petitioner, there were Saturdays and Sundays on 18th, 19th, 25th and 26th April. Due to lock down and restrictions imposed on travelling, he could not get Demand Draft of the amount of additional performance security deposit. He could not deposit the amount in the office of Respondent No.4. He could manage to get the Demand Draft and submit the same in the office of respondent No.4 on 27.04.2020 and it came to be accepted and encashed by respondent No.4.

2(iii) The petitioner being lowest bidder, his tender was accepted by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and thereby petitioner gets legal right to receive the work order. He has also made huge investment for carrying out the tender work. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 illegally, arbitrarily and by colourable exercise of powers has issued the work order dated 01.09.2020 in favour of respondent No.5 without making any communication with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the action of respondent No.4 in issuing impugned work order dated 01.09.2020 in favour of respondent No.5 is in breach of principles of natural justice. No opportunity of being heard and/or any notice ever given to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No.4 is in conclusion with respondent No.5. The respondent No.4 by misusing his powers issued work order in favour of respondent No.5 who is politically motivated person.

2(iv) By invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the work order dated 01.09.2020 issued by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 pursuant to E-tender notice and prayed to quash and set aside the same with another prayer to issue work order in his favour by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ.

2(v) Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed reply and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It is the stand of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that as per the tender condition No.15, the petitioner was under obligation to deposit additional