- In Veena Garg vs. Delhi Development Authority (2022), Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled that a bidder who has accepted the tender document on his own volition cannot request variation from it while participating in the tender. Furthermore, it was determined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that accepting such a proposal violates the principles outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution in relation to other bidders since it infringes on contractual obligations.
- In this case, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) announced an e-auction of industrial property, with a deadline of April 21, 2019, for completing the necessary papers and the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). On April 16, 2019, the Petitioner was notified that her Bid was the highest after bidding and submitting an application for the same and an EMD of 5% of the reserve amount. Following this, the Petitioner filed a letter to the Deputy Director (Industrial), DDA, stating that she had received a notification of her Bid's acceptance on June 7, 2019.
- Furthermore, the Tender Document for E-Auction (2018-19) mandated the Petitioner to pay 20% of the bid premium and the difference of 5% reserve price at the second stage within 7 days after the acceptance of the offer by the relevant authority. However, the Petitioner could not do so due to her illness and hospitalization. She consequently requested a 15-day extension to deposit the outstanding sum, which was later denied by the Deputy Director (Industrial). Following that, the Petitioner asked for a return of the 5% EMD that she had placed, but she received no response. Therefore, a complaint was filed by the aggrieved Petitioner with the HC.
- Article 14 stipulates that all citizens shall be treated equally before the law and that the law will treat everyone in the same way under the same conditions. This article forbids any kind of discrimination.
- Clause 2.4.3 of the tender document indicates that when the bids are approved by the Competent Authority, a communication will be given to the highest bidder, and the second stage EMD (20 percent of the premium provided) must be submitted by online payment within 7 days of the date of the LOI. If the second stage EMD is not submitted within the specified time frame, the first stage EMD (5 percent of the reserve price) offered along with the Bid will be forfeited.
- After hearing both parties, the Hon'ble High Court concluded that, when the facts of the case were compared to Clause 2.4.3 of the tender document, the forfeiture of the EMD bid (5 percent of the reserve price) was justified because the Petitioner had deposited 5% of the reserve price but had failed to deposit the remaining 20%. Furthermore, the HC noted that the Petitioner was requesting a variation from the parameters provided in the tender agreement, which was not a viable option.
- Therefore, the plea was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
