2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34370
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.2557 OF 2021(GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
WISTRON INFOCOMM MANUFACTURING
(INDIA) PVT LTD
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR
MR SENTHIL KUMAR
NO.30A, 2ND PHASE
KIADB MAIN ROAD, CHOKKASANDRA
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU-560058
KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.GAURAV SINGH GAUR., ADV.)
AND:
ITI LIMITED
THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ITI BHAVAN, DOORAVANINAGAR
BENGALURU-560016
KARNATAKA
&RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.S. NARYAN, ADV.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE EARNEST
MONEY DEPOSIT / BID SECURITY OF RS.1,00,00,000/-
(RUPEES
ONE
CRORE
ONLY)
SUBMITTED
BY
THE
PETITIONER ON 08.06.2020 THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT
NO.353604 DTD. 03.06.2020 DRAWN ON CITIBANK
ALONG WITH THE TECHNICAL BID PURSUANT TO NOTICE
INVITING TENDER FOR SELECTION OF ANCHOR UNIT(S)
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 18.05.2020 VIDE ANNX-
C AND AMENDMENT TO NOTICE INVITING TENDER
BEARING DTD. 24.04.2020 / 18.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT ON 01.06.2020 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC.
THIS
WRIT
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the
following relief:
<a)
Issue appropriate Writ directing the
Respondent to refund the Earnest Money
Deposit / Bid Security of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore Only) submitted by the
petitioner on 08.06.2020 through Demand
Draft No.353604 dated 03.06.2020 drawn on
Citibank along with the technical bid pursuant
to Notice Inviting Tender for selection of
3
anchor
unit(s)
bearing
REF:C/DGM-
C/EMC/NIT/2020/1
issued
by
the
Respondent
on
18th
May,
2020
as
per
Annexure-C and Amendment to Notice
Inviting
Tender
bearing
Ref:C/DGM-
C/EMC/NIT/2020/1 DATED 20-04-2020/ 18-
05-2020 issued by the Respondent on
01.06.2020 as per Annexure-D.=
2.
Heard learned Senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar,
appearing on behalf of Sri Jagadish Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. S. Narayan, learned
counsel for the respondent.
3.
Learned
Senior
counsel
would
submit
that
respondent/ITI issued tender notice inviting tenders from
the experienced and qualified Anchor Unit(s), Electronic
Manufacturing
Company/Developers,
for
establishing
Electronic Manufacturing Clusters and related amenities
etc., at ITI Limited, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru.
4.
In pursuance of the tender notice, the petitioner is
said to have submitted his tender along with Earnest
4
Money Deposit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on 08.06.2020 through
Demand Draft drawn on City Bank.
5.
Learned Senior counsel would submit that the
respondent did not accept the tender submitted by the
petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit revised
offer through letter dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure-F). It is
submitted that at any point of time, the petitioner could
withdraw his tender.
6.
Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner
was not interested in submitting the revised offer and as
such they have not submitted the revised offer. In that
circumstance, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for
refund of Earnest Money Deposit.
7.
Learned Senior counsel invites attention of this Court
to conditions in the tender document and submits that the
respondent could forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit only if
the petitioner withdraws the tender submitted.
5
8.
Learned Senior counsel further invites the attention
of this Court to Clause-7(i) and submits that if any bid is
not accepted/rejected by ITI, the bid security paid by that
bidder shall be refunded without interest. Thus, he prays
for a direction to the respondent to consider the
petitioner9s request for refund of Earnest Money Deposit.
9.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Sri M. S.
Narayan submits that after having several meetings and
discussions, the petitioner was asked to submit revised
offer which the petitioner failed to submit. Learned counsel
referring to statement of objection submits that the
petitioner had expressed his inability to proceed with the
project which amounts to withdrawal of his tender. Thus,
he submits that since the petitioner has withdrawn his
tender, he would not be entitled for refund of Earnest
Money Deposit.
10.
Learned counsel for respondent invites attention of
this Court to sub-clause (e) and (h) of Clause VII of bid
security. If for any reason, any selected bidder declines to
6
take on rent one or more of the buildings, the bid security
furnished by the Anchor Unit/Bidder shall stand forfeited.
Placing reliance on clause (h) of clause VII, learned
counsel would submit that since the petitioner has
withdrawn his bid, the security deposit is liable to be
forfeited.
11.
Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, the only
point which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner
would be entitled for refund for earnest money deposit.
12.
Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for
the following reasons.
There is no dispute with regard to submission of
tender by the pet