DES RAJ v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

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 2014:DHC:6279-DB 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