Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110123-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20522 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Methodex System Private Limited Respondent :- The Additional Director General Cpwd Nirman Bhawan Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Mayanka Srivastava,Shardool Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was L-1 bidder in a contract for construction of GST Building (2 Basement+G+7 Floors) at Kamla Nehru Nagar (Near Hapur Chungi), Ghaziabad (U.P.) (SH:-Provision of Partition, Furniture and Blinds at Ground Floor to fourth floor and seventh floor). (SW:-Provision of Furniture). The bid of the petitioner was accepted and a letter of acceptance was issued on 25.04.2025. One of the conditions of letter of acceptance was that the petitioner would submit a performance guaranty in a sum of Rs.8,37,155/- within seven days from the date of issuance of the acceptance letter. As the petitioner defaulted in submitting the performance guaranty within stipulated period, the respondents passed an order on 06.05.2025, impugned herein, forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit and debarring the petitioner from the re-bidding process. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order has preferred the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved only by the latter part of the order by which, it has been debarred from participating in all future tenders. 3. Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India submits that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of power under Clause-18 of the Tender Document. He submits that thereunder the only restriction is that the bidder shall not be allowed to participate in the re-bidding process of the same work. He submits that work in question has already been allotted in favour of some other contractor and grant of contract to him is not being challenged. He further submits that since the debarment is only in respect of the same work, therefore, he has no object if the said aspect is clarified. 4. Having regard to the submission made, we dispose of the instant petition by clarifying that the impugned order will not come in the way of the petitioner in participating in the bids relating to other works in the future. (R.M.N.Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Amit Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad