NAINAR SUNDARAM

The petitioner in W. P. Nos. 3252 and 3253 of 1980 is the appellant in these two writ appeals and the respondent in the writ petitions is the respondent in these two writ appeals. The appellant was in the list of registered and approved suppliers of the respondent and it had the benefit of an award of two contracts from the respondent. On 7-5-1980, the Superintending Engineer of the respondent addressed a communication to the petitioner as follows :-

Necessary work orders were issued to you in the reference first cited above and in the reference second cited you were requested by the C.E. to execute the agreement within 3 days on receipt of this letter. Apart from this in this office letter 3rd cited above also you were requested to execute the agreement with the Executive Engineer concerned. In spite of this you have not either deposited the additional security deposits or executed the agreement. Therefore you are hereby informed that as per clause 9 of the tender the E.M.D. paid by you for the above works are hereby forfeited, for the noncompliance in execution of the agreement. Further you have also not satisfactorily supplied the C.I. pipes and special