The main legal point established is that compliance with the bid validity period and the terms and conditions of a tender is crucial, and failure to do so can justify punitive actions by the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. This petition challenges the order/communication dated 16/06/2017 passed by the respondent - Western Coalfields Limited, thereby debarring the petitioners and their directors and partners, individually, jointly and severally from participation in future tenders of the respondent for a period of 12 months and forfeiting Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 50,00,000/- being arbitrary, mala fide, disproportionate, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that:-

The respondent, on 13/10/2016, floated e-Tender Notice No. 16/2016-17, for removal of all types of material in all stratas and evacuation of coal from quarry face and transportation to coal stock yard at surface at 'Kolarpimpri Extension OCM of Wani North area'. 04/11/2016 was the last date for submitting the bid. As per clause 13 of the tender conditions, the bid validity period was stipulated to be 120 days from the date of submission of the bid. The petitioner No. 3 submitted its bid on 04/11/2016. By communication dated 07/11/2016, the petitioner No. 3 confirmed its price proposal. As the petitioner No. 3 submitted its bid on 04/11/2016, the bid was valid till 04/03/2017. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 3 did not receive any communication or letter of acceptance on or before 04/03/2017. The petitioner No. 3 has placed on record communication dated 02/03/2017 issued by the respondent, which the petitioner No. 3 received on 06/03/2017 thereby confirming the acceptance of bid of the petitioner No. 3. Thus, according to the petitioners, the said communication was received beyond the bid validity period.

3. The petitioner No. 3, vide letter dated 07/03/2017, informed the respondent that since the bid validity period expired on 04/03/2017 and till that date, no letter of award issued by the respondent, was received by the petitioner No. 3, the bid submitted by the petitioner No. 3 does not remain valid and it should be treated as withdrawn from the side of the petitioner No. 3. The respondent was further requested to release the EMD of Rs. 50,00,000/- at the earliest. According to the petitioners, the LOA was officially uploaded on the respondent's website on 08/03/2017.

However, instead of returning the EMD amount to the petitioner No. 3, a communication dated 09/03/2017 was forwarded by respondent thereby calling upon the petitioner No. 3 to commence work awarded to the petitioners by accepting their bid. By communication dated 21/03/2017, the petitioner No. 3 was called upon to deposit the performance security for an amount of Rs. 6,28,76,768/- so that work order could be issued and agreement could be executed. Since the petitioner No. 3 failed to comply, further communications were issued by the respondent on 21/03/2017, 24/03/2017 and 02/04/2017 thereby calling upon the petitioner No. 3 to take steps in furtherance of LOA.

4. On failure on the part of the petitioner No. 3 to comply, a show cause notice dated 03/05/2017 was issued thereby calling upon explanation from the petitioner No. 3 as to why the work awarded vide LOA dated 02/03/2017 should not be cancelled, why EMD of Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be forfeited and why the petitioner No. 3 along with its Directors and partners should not be debarred jointly and severally from participation in the tenders of the respondent, for a period of 12 months.

5. In pursuance of the show cause notice, personal hearing was granted to the petitioner No. 3 on 15/05/2017, which was attended by the authorized representative of the petitioner No. 3. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 16/06/2017, the petitioners are debarred for a period of 12 months from participating in the tender of the respondent and EMD of Rs. 50,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner No. 3 is forfeited.

6. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent.

7. Lea