2010 PLP 1627 (CLC)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28-4-2008 passed by the respondents whereby the call deposit amount of Rs.348,544 deposited by the petitioner with respondents has been forfeited.

2. Brief Facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the respondents invited tenders through advertisement in newspaper for the supply of various edible commodities in the year 2007-08. The petitioners submitted his tender with cheque of Rs.348,544 as call deposit to the respondents for supply of basmati rice (385) at the rate of Rs.51.35 per kg. The opening date of the tenders was shown as 17-1-2008. On 17-1-2008, the tenders were opened in presence of the parties and during scrutiny, the rate offered by the petitioner was found the lowest, viz. Rs.51.35 per kg, but the respondents did not disclose 'their mind qua the acceptance or rejection of tenders. On 6-2-2008, the petitioner received a letter from respondents for negotiation on the rates, which according to the respondents were on higher side. In the negotiation, new rates, i.e. Rs.54.35 per kg were given which generally meant that the previous rates came to an end ipso facto but the respondents did not pass an adequate order rather on 28-4-2008, the petitioner was informed that the respondents have forfeited Rs.348,544 which was deposited with them on account of call deposit.

3. Learned counsel contends that since no penal clause was introduced by the respondents, therefore, the act of the respondents to forfeit the huge amount of Rs.348,544 is illegal, therefore, the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to refund the security amount of Rs.348,544 to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab assisted by Raja Abdul Qayyum Law Officer Prisons Department has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, Rs.348,544 deposited by the petitioner on account of earnest money was forfeited under sections 4(a)(b) of the relevant Act. Further contends that there is an. arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, the instant writ petition is not proceedable and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The perusal of record shows that except order dated 28-4-2008 whereby the respondents informed the petitioner that his earnest money has been forfeited, the petitioners were never served with any show-cause notice. The respondents have not denied this fact that no time frame was fixed for the validity of offer neither in the tender form nor the petitioner was informed at the time of opening of tenders on 17-1-2008 nor it was mentioned in the advertisement published in the newspaper nor any such notice was served upon the petitioner, therefore, the order of forfeiture by the respondents is a nullity in the eye of law and is against the principles of nature justice. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of call deposit of Rs.348,544 to the petitioner within one month. A.R.K./A-173/L Petition accepted.