ORDER :

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 03.03.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2. Petitioner's submission:

2.1 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the tenders were invited by way of Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of National Highways, viz., (i) Gorantala – Hindupur & (ii) Mudanur to B.Kothapalli. The petitioner had participated in the said tender and submitted documents to support their eligibility criteria. Further, it made an offer for those bids with a Bank Guarantee of Rs.13.9 Crores.

2.2 Thereafter, the opening of the bid for the tender was originally scheduled on 05.09.2023 and 19.12.2023. However, the respondent could not adhere to these dates and extended the tender validity for almost 7 times. In the meantime, a letter of clarification dated 13.11.2024 was received by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that a complaint was received against the petitioner from a local MLA on the ground of fabrication of documents. At this juncture, the petitioner realised that due to the inadvertant error made by the petitioner's staff, some mistakes had occurred in the tender document. Under these circumstances, the petitioner withdrew his offer even before the opening of technical bid.

2.3 It is a well settled law that a bid offer can be withdrawn before the opening of bid. Inspite of such withdrawal, based on the complaint, filed against the petitioner, with regard to the alleged fabrication of documents, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 13.11.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his submission in the form of reply dated 19.11.2024 to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent on 03.03.2025 and the petitioner's bid offer security was also confiscated by the respondents 1 to 3. Hence, this petition.

2.4 During the earlier occassion, an objection was raised by the respondents on the aspect of jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, even if a fraction of cause of action arose here, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. When such being the case, the show cause notice was issued and the impugned order was passed within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, certainly, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. To substantiate the said aspect, he referred to the judgement in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., vz. UOI and others reported in 2004 Supp 1 SCR 842 & 843.

2.5 Further, he would submit that as stated above, the petitioner had withdrawn his bid offer as early as on 19.11.2024, after which, the technical bid evaluation was published on 07.12.2024. In such case, there is no doubt that the petitioner's bid offer was not alive at the time of opening the tender. However, prior to the official openning date, the respondents 1 to 3, in collusion with the politians, had illegally opened the petitioner's bid offer without any authority and leaked the confidential information with regard to the petitioner's bid offer to an alleged whistle blower and an MLA, who filed a complaint against the petitioner on the ground of fabrication of documents.

2.6 He would also contend that no Law or Statute empowers the respondents 1 to 3 to confiscate the petitioner's bid offer security. In terms of the provisions of Section 73 & 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if there is any breach of contract, there can be a claim for damages. The said aspect would arise only if there is a concluded contract. However, in this case, the bid offer was withdrawn by the petitioner. Neither a bid nor the withdrawn bid offer can be equated to a concluded contract. In such case, since there is no contract between parties, no damages can be imposed on a bid offer, which was already withdrawn. In this regard, he referred to a judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maula Bux vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1970 SC 1955 an