JUDGMENT :

VINEET SARAN, J.

1. In response to a tender call notice dated 28.10.2015 for the work “Provision of Passenger amenities over Sambalpur Division”, the petitioner had submitted its tender and was selected. The letter of acceptance was issued on 21.03.2016, in terms of which the petitioner was to submit the performance guarantee within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of acceptance, with an extension of another 30 days being permitted, i.e., maximum period was up to 60 days. Admittedly, the performance guarantee was got prepared by the petitioner on 18.05.2016 and sent by courier on the same day, which was received by the office of the opposite party on 20.05.2016. The stipulation in the tender document, as well as the letter of acceptance, was that if the performance guarantee is submitted beyond 30 days and within 60 days, a penal interest of 15% per annum was to be paid for the delay of each day, beyond 30 days. It is not disputed that the penalty amount was also submitted by the petitioner along with the performance guarantee amount received on 20.05.2016.

2. Then, by order dated 24.05.2016, the contract in terms of the letter of acceptance was terminated and the EMD of the petitioner forfeited and the petitioner was debarred from participating in the re-tender for the said work on the ground that in terms of clause-21 (a) of the “Instructions to tenderers & conditions”, there was delay of one day in submitting the performance guarantee, as the 60 days period expired on 19.05.2016. Challenging the said order of termination dated 24.05.2016 passed by the opposite party, as well as certain other consequential orders, this writ petition has been filed.

3. We have heard Ms. S. Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri S.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party and have perused the records. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

4. For ready reference, Clause-21(a) of the “Instructions to tenderers & conditions” is extracted below:-

“21. Performance Guarantee:-The procedure for submitting Performance Guarantee is outlined below:-

(a) The successful bidder shall have to submit a Performance Guarantee (PG) within 30 (thirty) days from the date of issue of Letter of Acceptance (LOA). Extension of time for submission of PG beyond 30 (thirty) days and up to 60 days from the date of issue of LOA may be given by the Authority who is competent to sign the contract agreement. However, a penal interest of 15% per annum shall be charged for the delay beyond 30 (thirty) days, i.e. from 31st day after the date of issue of LOA. In case the contractor fails to submit the requisite PG even after 60 days from the date of issue of LOA, the contract shall be terminated duly forfeiting EMD and other dues, if any payable against that contract. The failed contractor shall be debarred from participating in re-tender for that work.”

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 30 days period from the date of issuance of letter of acceptance, which was 21.03.2016, would expire on 20.04.2016 and consequentially the 60 days period would expire on 20.05.2016. It is contended that it is not denied that the bank draft, which was prepared towards performance guarantee, along with penal interest, was prepared on 18.05.2016, was duly received by the office of the opposite party on 20.05.2016. According to the petitioner, there was thus no delay in submission of the performance guarantee in terms of clause-21(a) of the terms and conditions.

6. Per contra, Sri S.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party has relied on the letter of acceptance dated 21.03.2016 wherein also it is provided that the performance guarantee was to be submitted within 30 days from the issue of letter of acceptance, but it was clarified that it would mean to be on or before 19.04.20