ORDER :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J

Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

2. The respondent No. 4 issued a Percentage Rate Basis Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) inviting bids for construction of Mangla Bhainsajhar Road to Dindayal Colony Lokhandi Railway Phatak two lane road, length of which is 3.52 km. The estimated cost was valued at Rs.517.12 lacs.

3. The petitioner, which is a registered 'A' category contractor, participated in the aforesaid NIT along with others. Bid was opened on 17.11.2021 and on such opening, the petitioner emerged as the 'L-1' bidder. The respondent No. 2 issued an order of approval for issuance of Letter of Acceptance (LoA) on 03.12.2021 to the respondent No. 4.

4. The cause of action for approaching this Court by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had arisen in view of the letter dated 30.12.2021 issued by the respondent No. 4, wherein it was stated that the petitioner's bid, which is 20% below the estimated rate, was accepted by a letter dated 07.12.2021, but as the petitioner had failed to execute the agreement on or before the scheduled date i.e. 23.12.2021, in terms of Clause 8.1.1 of the NIT, the tender has been cancelled and the security money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited.

5. Clause 8.1.1 of the NIT provides that the tenderer whose tender has been accepted shall produce an appropriate solvency certificate, if so required by the Executive Engineer and will execute the agreement in the prescribed form, within a fortnight of the date of communication of the acceptance of his tender by the department. It is also stipulated therein that failure to do so would result in the earnest money being forfeited to the Government of Chhattisgarh and tender being cancelled.

6. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had intimated to the office of the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 08.12.2021 that office address of the petitioner had been changed. The letter dated 07.12.2021, which was stated to have been issued to the petitioner, was returned back with the endorsement "change of address".

The said letter was dispatched on 09.12.2021 and later on, the letter dated 07.12.2021 was again sent to the correct address of the petitioner on 20.12.2021, which the petitioner received on 27.12.2021. It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that apart from executing the agreement, the petitioner was also, in view of letter dated 07.12.2021, required to deposit additional security amount of Rs. 51,71,200/- in the form of bank Guarantee and 5 years performance guarantee before execution of the agreement. Another letter dated 24.12.2021 informing the petitioner that he had not taken the requisite steps for execution of the contract agreement was also received on 27.12.2021. Accordingly, he seeks to contend that prior to 27.12.2021, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that LoA was issued in his favour and that as a result thereof, he is to execute the agreement in terms of Clause 8.1.1 within a fortnight. After receipt of the letter on 27.12.2021, the petitioner had started taking requisite steps and the petitioner also received another letter dated 27.12.2021, which was dispatched on 31.12.2021, on 01.01.2022, by which the petitioner was asked to take immediate action for execution of the agreement. It is in the light of the above, he submits that when opportunity was granted to the petitioner to execute the agreement, though period of 15 days from letter dated 07.12.2021 had elapsed, issuance of letter dated 30.12.2021 is arbitrary and unreasonable and it reflects total non-application of mind.

7. Abiding by the stand taken in the reply-affidavit, Mr. Pradhan has submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware of LoA being issued till 27.12.2021 is an utterly false plea taken for the