C<<\S IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE`R RAGHUNANDAN RAO JUSTICE !4£BIIT APPEAL__NO.I 344 QEJ2g2§ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent pleased against the order Passed in lA.No.1/2024 in WP.No.22496/2021 dated 25.02.2025 on the fI'le Of the High Court. Betwee n : 1. M /s.P.M.Granite Export Private Limited, Office at H.No.129, 7th Main, 5th Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore -560041, Rep. by Director, Sri.M.Babanna S/o. Late P.Munivenkatappa Aged about 59 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.1, 1st A Main, 7th Cross, BTM 2nd Stage, Bangalore -76. ...AppellantM/rit Petitioner AND 1. The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Prl'ncipal Secretary Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh lbrahimpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Nodal Officer for Auction:Process, DDM and G (MERITO), Vijayawada. // . E 4. M/s.Mahalakshmi Minerals, E.No.10/178, Dharmam Village, Merkamudidam MandaI, VIzianagaram District. ...Respondents `` I_A N_O: 1_a_F 2_025 Petition under Section 151 LrCPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to refund the bid security amount of Rs.4,97,50,000/-with interest for the delay, pending disposal of the writ petition. [A NO: 2OF2O25 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the learned Judge passed l'n lA.No.1/2024 in WP.No.22496/2021 dated 21.02.2025. Counsel for the Appellant: M/s O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Mos.1 to 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: M/s INDUS LAW FIRM The Court made the following order: Z' Z, z/EEL APHCO10154752O25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH BenchSr-No:-9 EHE] AT AMARAVATl EEEI WRIT APPEAL NO: 344 of 2025 M /s. P.M.Granite Export Private Limited, Bangalore Vs- The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Advocate for Appellant Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): ...Appellant ...Respondents ********** Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for OMR Law Firm Mrs. S. Pranathi (Spl.GP) for R.1 to R.3 M/s.Indus Law Firm for R.4 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE I. 27thMarch,2025 PC: I . I The present writ appeal has been Preferred against the Order, dated 21.02.2025 passed in lA.No.1 of 2024 in WP.No.22496 of 2021. 2. The petitioner (appellant herein) had responded tO a notification issued by the Mining and Geology Department of the State of Andhra pradesh. The technical bid of the petitioner Was however rejected by Virtue Of an order, dated 30.09.2021. lt is not out of place here to mention that the petitioner had submitted security bid amounting to Rs.4,97,50,000/-in terms of Clause 15.3 of the tsi,- 2 HCJ&RRR,J WA 344 2025 tender document, which earlier had envisaged the bid security to be furnished to the extent of Rs.1,99,00,000/-which subsequently, it is stated, was enhanced to the aforementioned amount of Rs.4,97,50,000/-. 3. The writ petition filed by the pet'ltioner is still pending, However, it appears that during the interregnum, an lnterlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner seeking release of the security bid amount. The prayer for such a release has been rejected by the learned single Judge, by virtue of the order impugned, precisely on the ground that clauses 15.6 & 15.7 envisaged forfeiture of the bid amount in the event the financial bid of a bidder was rejected. 4. For purposes of reference, clauses 15.6 & 1.57 of the tender document are reproduced hereunder: "15.6 The State Government shall be entitled to forfeit and appropriate the Bid Security as damages, amongst others in any of the events specified in this Tender Document. The Bidder, by submitting its bid pursuant to this Tender Document, shall be deemed to have acknowledged and confirmed that the State Government will suffer loss and damage on account of withdrawal of its bid or for any other default by the Bidder during the period of bid validity as specified in this Tender Document. No relaxation of any kind on Bid Security shall be given to any Bidder. 15.7 The Bid Security shall be forfeited as damages without prejudice to any other right or remedy that may be available to the State Government under the Tender Document and/or otherwise, under, inter alia, the following conditions: •L3 +- 3 HCJ&RRR,J WA 344 2025 (a) If a Bidder submits a Technical Bid which is not conforming tO this Tender Document, the Act or the rules framed thereunder Or Submits an initial price offer which is less than the Reserve Price' (b) If a Bidder engages in a Corrupt Practice, Fraudulent Practice, coercive practice, undesirable Practice or Restrictive Practice as specified in clause 16 of this Tender Document; (c) If a Bidder withdraws its bid during the Period Of bid Validity as specified in this Tender Document or as extended by mutual consent of the respective Bidder(s) and the State Government,® (d) In the case of Successful Bidder, if it falls within the specified time limit to furnish the Performance Security and make Payment Of upfront payment within the period prescribed in this Tender Document,- or (a) If the e-auction process is annulled due to non-submission Of at least one Final Price Offer on the electronic e-auction platform, by the Qualified Bidder(s) who has submitted the highest Initial Price Officer i.a., the applicable FIoor Price for the second round Of e-auction." 5, On a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents before the learned single Judge, it can be seen that till now there has been no specific order passed by the off'lcial respondents invoking the clauses mentioned hereinabove with a view to forfeit the security bid amount furnished by the petitioner with the official respondents. what is stated in the counter-affidavit is that the amount has not been forfeited on account of the pendency of the writ petition before the learned single Judge in which the petitioner has Since Challenged the award Of the contract in favour of private respondent No.4 in the said writ Petition. ¢ 4 HCJ&RRR,J WA 344 2025 6. Learned counsel forthe appellantwould submitthat it is unfairOn the part of the official respondents to retain the security bid amount with them ad ,-r7f,'n,'fum and till the conclusion and decision Of the Writ Petition. It was urged that pending the final dec|ISiOn by the learned Single Judge, the amount be returned with the undertaking that the said amount would be furnished in the event the petitioner succeeded in the writ petition and the Court ordered the allotment of the 'contract in its favour. 7. Mrs. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on the other hand submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition primarily centers around the challenge to the allotment of the contract in favour of private respondent No.4 and that the issue which has now been decided by the learned single Judge by way of an order passed in an lA is only an ancillary issue which Can await the final decision of the writ petition. 8. We are in agreementwith the Proposition SO advanced by learned special Government Pleader, more so, for the reason that till now the issue aS to whether the amount needs to be forfeited at all in terms of the agreed terms of the bid document as contained in clause 15.6 & 15.7 has not arisen as no decision has been taken by the Government in that regard. For all we know, in the event the Petitioner Succeeds in the Writ Petition, the issue of forfeiture may not arise at all. I -=4) 5 HCJ&RRR,J wA 344 2025 9. On a perusal Of the Order impugned, it has been held that the amount cannot be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that the state Government iS entitled tO forfeit and appropriate the bid secur-Itv as damages, amongst others in any of the events specified in the tender document. lt is only in those circumstances that the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 10. We are however Of the OPiniOn that While the tender document may contain clauses which may entitle the state to forfe'lt the security bid amount, yet, the issue with regard to the enforceability of such a clause/clauses has to be gone into. The conclusion arr-lVed at by the learned S'lngle Judge that money cannot be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner only because there was a forfeiture clause in the tender document, |ln our opinion, is not sustainable more so when the court did not go -Into the issue Of enfOrCeability of the said clause. we, however, leave the issue of enforceability of the forfeiture clause open to be decided by the learned single Judge. ll. Be that as ®lt may, We Set aside the Order impugned and direCtthe Registry to list WP.No.22496 of 2021 before the learned Single Judge having the Roster for appropriate Orders, On 16.04.2025 6 HCJ & RRR,J WA 344 2025 12. TheWritAppeal is, accordingly, allowed. No orderasto costs. Miscellaneous applications Pending, if any, Shall Stand CIosed. sd/-E KAMESWARA RAO •r---- TRUECOPY,, JOINagRJ SECTION OFFICER -` To, 1. The Principal Secretary Department of Mines and Geology, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh lbrahimpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Nodal Officer for Auctl'on Process, DDM and G (MERITO), ViJ-ayaWada. 4. M/s.Mahalakshmi Minerals, E.No.10/178, Dharmam VI'llage, Merkamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. The Section Officer, Writ Non uService Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 6. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh 7. OneCCtoM/SOM RLawFirm [OPUC] 8. One CC to M/s Indus Law Firm [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology, High Court OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies ¢-,,/zJ GSC F7 ) i:, € S HIGH COURT DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER WA.No.344 of 2025 ALLOWING OF THE WA WITHOUT COSTS OI APR 20Z5 Current SectIOn