JUDGMENT

S.C. Gupte, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank. The subject matter of controversy in the present petition concerns debarment of Petitioner No.1, who was the Respondent bank's contractor for e-surveillance of over 10,000 ATMs of the bank spread all over the Country.

2. The Request For Proposal (RFP) for surveillance solutions, under which Petitioner No.1 submitted its bid and, in response to which it was declared as the successful bidder and awarded the contract, clearly mentions a stipulation under which Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) submitted by the bidder was liable to be forfeited inter alia if the successful bidder failed to sign the contract or furnish performance bank guarantee within the period specified in the RFP/Purchase Order. If EMD was forfeited for that reason, the concerned bidder was liable, in the sole discretion of the bank, to be debarred from participating in the RFPs floated by the bank in future.

3. It is not in dispute that though Petitioner No.1 was the successful bidder, it failed to furnish a performance bank guarantee. In its affidavit, Petitioner No.1 has come up with reasons why the performance