AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners submitted bid quoting Rs. 15,050/- per sq. yard (total Rs. 11,58,85,000/-). By communication dated 5-8-2005, the executive engineer (housing) second respondent herein; informed the petitioners that they are the highest bidders for the land offered for sale. Second respondent also informed the petitioners that they have to pay an amount of Rs. 2,96,30,100/- by 8-8-2005 as per the terms and conditions of the bid as otherwise earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by them will be forfeited. After receiving said communication first petitioner submitted objections, inter alia, stating as the survey plan was not provided and that Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (BVB) was claiming lease of the land. Yet another communication dated 13-8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting in the auction and APHB would not entertain any kind of objections after bid is knocked down in favour of highest bidder. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions. The action of APHB in issuing impugned order forfeiting EMD is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have not committed any breach of contract and therefore, any forfeiture would be unsustainable. As per Section 55 of TP Act seller is bound to disclose the material defects in the property and the buyer has a right to decline and accept the delivery of the property with defect and insist upon the rectification of the defects or encumbrances of the property. Learned counsel relied on decisions in Sohan Lal v. Bal Kishan and N. Narasingarayudu v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if so provided for. 9. lnsofar legal relationship between tenderer and authority inviting tenders is concerned all such relations are governed by TCAN themselves which are in the nature of binding administrative/executive instructions (See Ramana v. I.A. Authority of India: (1979)IILLJ217SC ). Though TCAN are in the nature of administrative instructions, they have to be strictly complied with by both the parties. There is no dispute on this. Therefore, it has to be seen as to what are the terms and conditions relevant for the purpose of this case in the matter of forfeiture of EMD. They are conditions (1), (2), (4) and (11), which read as under: 1. The participants in the sealed Tender should deposit Rs. 5.00 lakhs, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The highest bidder has to deposit 25% of the bid amount and 1% auction expenses on the total amount by 8-8-2005 and balance 75% of the bid amount should be remitted within three months from the date of confirmation of auction by VC. Auction was conducted on 5-8-2005. As per condition (4) of TCAN if highest bidder violates condition (2) thereof regarding deposit of 25% of the bid amount and 1% auction expenses, APHB is entitled to forfeit said amount and re-auction the plot. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 11. The submission with regard to the alleged breach of contract of APHB and enforceability of Section 55 of TP Act is wholly misconceived. It cannot be ignored that as per condition (6) of TCAN, high....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not go back and contravene condition (2) of TCAN, for default of which, impugned order was issued. In a case of doubt about the defective title the petitioners had a right to withdraw from the bid. Even in such a case the right of APHB to forfeit EMD as well as 25% of the bid amount as per condition (2) of TCAN is not taken away. 14. In H.U.D.A. (supra) and DDA (supra) the Supreme Court upheld the right of forfeiture of the public authority when TCAN were not complied with. 15. In National Highways Authority (supra) tenders were called for collection of toll on a portion of Highway in Rajasthan. As per the tender conditions the bid shall remain valid for a period of 120 days. Respondent's tender was accepted, but it withdrew the t....