Des Raj vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6039 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                             Judgment delivered on: 21.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 7977/2014

DES RAJ                                                             ..... Petitioner
                                     versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                         ..... Respondents

+       W.P.(C) 7983/2014

SURAJ CHAUDHARY                                                     ..... Petitioner
                                     versus

THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                     ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners                  : Mr Roshan Lal Goel
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4     : Mr Amiet Andlay with Mr Prem Mishra

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

                                         JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 18698/2014 in WP(C) 7977/2014 & CM 18704/2014 in WP(C) 7983/2014 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 7977/2014 & CM 18697/2014 and WP(C) 7983/2014 & CM 18703/2014

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr Amiet

Andlay appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on advance

notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent

No. 3 - Delhi Transport Corporation is not a necessary party and requests

that the same be dropped from the array of respondents. It is ordered

accordingly.

2. The short point arising in these petitions is with regard to the letter

dated 16.10.2014 issued to the petitioners, whereby the petitioners‟ bid

security has been forfeited and they have been debarred from

participating in tenders / RFPs of DTIDC for the current financial year

and the next four financial years.

3. The respondents had invited bids for licensing of built up shops at

the Departure Block and Food Court at Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere

Gate, Delhi by a notice inviting tender dated 14.07.2014. The petitioners

had submitted separate bids in the appropriate bid form for shop No. 34

and Shop No. 36, respectively. The bid form required quoting of the rates

in figures "per square feet/ month". The petitioner - Mr Des Raj applied

for shop No. 36 and the petitioner - Mr Suraj Chaudhary applied for shop

No. 34. In the column where the rate per square feet/ month was to be

quoted, Mr Des Raj quoted "1,21,000/month" and in words also he

quoted „one lakh twenty one thousand rupees/month‟. Similarly, the

petitioner Mr Suraj Chaudhary quoted a figure of "48,000/month" and in

words - „forty eight thousand rupees/month‟. This was taken by the

respondents to mean that the said petitioners had quoted ` 1,21,000/- per

square feet per month and ` 48,000/- per square feet per month. The

sizes of the shops were as under:-

Shop No. 34 - 109.7 sq. ft.

Shop No. 36 - 112.59 sq. ft.

4. Consequently, the respondents multiplied the area of the shop with

the figures quoted by the petitioners and found that the petitioners‟ bids

were ` 52,69,920/- per month in respect of shop No. 34 and

` 1,36,23,390/- per month in respect of shop No. 36. Obviously, these

were the highest quotes calculated in the aforesaid manner and, therefore,

Letters of Acceptance (LOA) were issued to the petitioners on

17.09.2014. In respect of Mr Des Raj, he was required to give an interest

free security deposit of ` 14,98,57,290/- which was equal to 11 months‟

licence fee in the form of a DD/PO/FDR/Bank Guarantee, as stipulated in

Clause 4.9 of the RFP drawn in favour of the Executive Director, DTIDC.

The Letters of Acceptance clearly stipulated that in case the security

deposit was not made within 15 days of the issuance of the Letter of

Acceptance, the bid security of ` 50,000/- each submitted by them, would

be forfeited without further notice.

5. It is the petitioners‟ case that the figure quoted by them was the

total figure per month in respect of the entire shop and not computed per

square foot. It is the petitioners‟ case that they were under the bona fide

impression that they could either quote the rate on „per square foot‟ basis

or the total rate „per month‟ and on that understanding, they quoted the

rate on „per month‟ basis for the entire shop and their quotes were

actually ` 48,000/- per month and ` 1,21,000/- per month for the entire

shop Nos. 34 and 36, respectively. However, the respondents took the

said quotes as rates „per square foot per month‟ and, therefore, arrived at

the fantastic figure of ` 52,69,920/- in respect of shop No. 34 and

` 1,36,23,390/- in respect of shop No. 36. On the basis of this, since the

petitioners obviously could not make the exorbitant security deposits, the

letter dated 16.10.2014 forfeiting the bid security amounts of ` 50,000/-

each and debarment for the current financial year and the next four

financial years, was issued.

6. After having examined the entire matter we are of the view that this

was a clear case of a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioners. It is

evident that it was a mistake because there is, to our knowledge, no

property in Delhi which would fetch a monthly licence fee of ` 48,000/-

„per square foot per month‟ or a licence fee of ` 1,21,000/- „per square

foot per month‟. In our view, if the figures quoted by the petitioners did

not represent the „per square feet per month‟ rate, it was incumbent upon

the respondents to have rejected the bids as being non-compliant, rather

than issuing Letters of Acceptance at the exorbitant figures computed by

them.

7. In view of the foregoing, we direct that the forfeiture be set aside

and the security bid amount of ` 50,000/- each be returned to the

petitioners. The debarment order also stands set aside.

8. The writ petitions are allowed as above.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



NOVEMBER 21, 2014                             JAYANT NATH, J
SR