STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusM/S MALIK TRADERS

                         (2011] 10 S.C.R 372


A                   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                                  v.
                          M/S MALIK TRADERS
                    (Civil Appeal No. 7033 of 2011)
                          AUGUST 17, 2011
B
         [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

        Contract:

c       Tender - Inviting of bids for collection of toll - Terms of
  bid requiring to keep the offer/bid open for acceptance upto
  90 days after the last date of receipt of bid - Letter of
  acceptance issued to bidder within the bid validity period -
  Bidder failed to deposit security amount and the first
0 instalment within the stipulated period - Letter of acceptance
  issued to bidder cancelled and bid security forfeited - HELD:
  A person may have a right to withdraw his offer, but if he has
  made his offer on a condition that the Bid Security amount
  can be forfeited in case he withdraws the offer during the
E period of bid validity, he has no right to claim that the Bid
  Security should not be forfeited and it should be returned to
  him - In the instant case, the bidder had agreed to keep the
  bid open for 90 days after the last date of receipt of the bid
  and that he would be bound by the communication of
  acceptance of the bid within the said period of 90 days -
F Therefore, the bidder could not have withdrawn the bid within
  the said 90 days - Besides, since the bidder withdrew his offer
  during the period of bid validity in violation of the agreement,
  the full value of Bid Security was liable to be forfeited - The
  purpose of bid security is to ensure that the offer is not
G withdrawn during the bid validity period of 90 days and a
  contract comes into existence - Such conditions are included
  to ensure that only genuine parties make the bids - The very
  purpose of such a condition in the offer/bid will be defeated,
  if forfeiture is not permitted when the offer is withdrawn in
H                               372
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MALIK TRADERS                 373


violation of the agreement - High Court was not justified in     A
quashing the letters accepting the bid of the respondent and
the letter cancelling the acceptance of the bid and forfeiting
the Bid Security - Order of High Court set aside - Contract
Act, 1872 - s. 5.
                                                                 B
     The respondent was the second highest bidder for
the bid of collection of toll. In terms of the written offer/
bid, the respondent agreed to ke,ep the bid open for
acceptance upto 90 days after the last date of receipt of
bid. As the highest bidder failed to deposit the security C
amount and the first instalment within the stipulated
period, the letter of acceptance issued to that bidder was
cancelled and a letter of acceptance dated 26.11.2008
was issued to the respondent within the stipulated period
of 90 days. Since the respondent also failed to deposit
the security amount and the first instalment within the D
stipulated period, the letter of acceptance issued to the
respondent was cancelled by Memo dated 17.12.2008,
and the Bid Security of Rs. 20 lakhs was forfeited. Bids
were re-invited for collection of toll and this time the
respondent being the highest bidder, its bid was accepted E
and it deposited the security amount a.nd the first
instalment in terms of the letter of acceptance. Thereafter
the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
 for refund of the forfeited amount of the Bid Security of
 Rs. 20 lakhs in respect of the earlier bid contending that F
 before the receipt of the letter of acceptance, it, by letter
 dated 15.11.2008, had informed the authority concerned
 that it was not interested in the work and the amount of
 Bid Security be refunded to it. The writ petition was
 allowed by the High Court holding that since the offer was G . , ·..:
 withdrawn before it was accepted, there could be no                         .... ·
                                                                         '·.
                                                                         '


 acceptance of the offer and, as such, there could not be
 any consequence of the writ petitioner not honouring the                    ·\,
 commitment. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the
 appeal.                                               ··      H
    374    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A         Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. It is true that as per s. 5 of the Contract Act,
  1872, a proposal may be revoked at any time before the
  communication of its acceptance is complete as against
8 the proposer. It is also true that before receipt of the letter
  of acceptance dated 26.11.2008, the respondent had sent
  a letter dated 15.11.2008 withdrawing its offer. H·owever,
  admittedly, in paragraph 8 of the written offer/bid, the
  respondent had agreed to keep the bid open for
C acceptance upto 90 days after the last date of receipt of
  bid. The respondent had also agreed that it shall be
  bound by the communication of acceptance of the bid
  dispatched within the said period of 90 days. Therefore,
  respondent could not have withdrawn the bid before the
  expiry of the period of 90 days. It is not disputed that the
D acceptance of the respondent's bid was communicated
  to the respondent within the said period of 90 days.
  Therefore, the respondent was bound by the said
  acceptance of the bid, despite its withdrawal by the
  respondent in the meanwhile. (para 10) [379-D-H]
E
       1.2 In paragraph 10 of the offer/bid, the respondent
  had also agreed that the full value of the Bid Security
  would be forfeited without prejudice to any other right or
  remedy available to the Executive Engineer or his
F successor in office or his representative, should the
  respondent withdraw or modify its offer/bid during the
  period of bid validity (90 days) or extended validity period.
  Since the respondent withdrew its offer during the period
  of bid validity in violation of the agreement in paragraph
G 8 of the offer/bid, the full value of Bid Security was liable
  to be forfeited in terms of the agreement contained in
  paragraph 10 of the offer/bid. Under the cover of the
  provisions contained in s. 5 of the Act, the respondent
  cannot escape from the obligations and liabilities under
  the agreements contained in its offer/bid. The right to
H
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MA~IK TRADERS              375

withdraw an offer before its acceptance cannot nullify the   A
agreement to suffer any penalty for the withdrawal of the
offer against the terms of agreement. [para 10) [379-G-H;
380-A-F]

     1.3 A person may have a right to withdraw his offer,
                                                              8
but if he has made his offer on a condition that the Bid
Security amount can be forfeited in case he withdraws
the offer during the period of bid validity, he has, no right
to claim that the Bid Security should not be forfeited and
it should be returned to him. Forfeiture of such Bid
Security amount does not, in any way, affect any statutory C
right u/s 5 of the Act. The Bid Security was given by the
respondent and taken by the appellants to ensure that the
offer is not withdrawn during the bid validity period of 90
days and a contract comes into existence. Such
conditions are included to ensure that only genuine D
parties make the bids. The very purpose of such a
condition in the offer/bid will be defeated, if forfeiture is
not permitted when the offer is withdrawn in violation of
the agreement. [para 1OJ [380-E~H; 381-A]
                                                              E
     National. Highways Authority of India v. Ganga
Enterprises & Anr. 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 114 = (2003) 7 SCC
410 - relied on.

    2. The High Court was not justified in quashing the
letter dated 26.11.2008 accepting the bid of the             F
respondent and the letter dated 17.12.2008 forfeiting the
Bid Secur~ty amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. The order of the
High Court is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition
stands dismissed. [para 12) [383-C]
                                                             G
                    Case Law Reference:
    2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 114      relied on       para 11
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7033 of 2011.                                .               .H
    376     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A       From the Judgment & Order dated 07.07.2009 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
    No. 2266 of 2009.

       P.N. Mishra, Manjit Singh, Vivekta Singh, Harkesh, Kamal
B   Mohan Gupta for tt:ie Appellants.

       A.K. Sanghi, D.K. Garg, Dipak Kumar Jena, Minakshi
    Ghosh Jena, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg for the
    Respondent.

c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7.7.2009
  rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &
D Haryana in C.W.P. No. 2266 of 2009, allowing the said writ
  petition. The appellants were the respondents in the writ petition
  and the sole respondent herein was the petitioner therein.

          3. Facts in brief are stated hereunder:
E      On 18.9.2008, the appellant State of Haryana invited
  tenders from interested persons for appointment as
  Entrepreneur/Agent for collection of toll at Toll Bridge over river
  Yamuna on Karnal-Meerut Road, near U.P. Border. The
  respondent M/s. Malik Traders was one of the 13 bidders who
F submitted tenders. As required by the terms and conditions of
  the Bid, all the bidders, including the respondent, deposited the
  Bid Security of Rs. 20 lakhs in the form of bank guarantee or
  FDR in favour of the Executive Engineer. M/s. Gaurav Traders
  who quoted Rs. 8,83,30,000/- was the highest bidder and the
G respondent Mis. Malik Traders who quoted Rs. 7,97,66,180/-
  was the second highest bidder.

       4. As required under the terms and conditions of the bid,
  the respondent in paragraph 8 of its written offer/bid agreed to
H keep the bid open for acceptance upto 90 days after the last
   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MALIK TRADERS                    377
              [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.)
 date of receipt of bid. The respondent also agreed that it shall      A
 be bound by the communication of acceptance of the bid
 dispatched within the aforesaid period of 90 days. In paragraph
 10 of the offer/bid, the respondent also agreed that the full value
 of Bid Security would be forfeited without prejudice to any other
 right or remedy available to the Executive Engineer or his            B
 successor in office or his representative, should the respondent
 withdraw or modify its bid/offer after the last date and time for
 the receipt of bids, during the period of bid validity (90 days)
 or extended validity period.

       5. Since Mis. Gaurav Traders was found to be the highest        C
  bidder, a letter of acceptance was issued to it on 25.9.2008.
  However, it failed to deposit the security amount and the first
  instalment as per the letter of acceptance. Therefore, as per
  conditior:i No. 9.3(8) of the Detailed Notice Inviting Tender
  (DNIT) and condition No. 6 of the acceptance letter, the Bid         D
  Security of Rs. 20 lakhs deposited by M/s. Gaurav Traders was
  forfeited and the letter of acceptance was cancelled and
  withdrawn vide letter dated 16.10.2008 of the competent
  authority. Thereafter, a letter of acceptance dated 26.11.2008
  was issued to the respondent M/s. Malik Traders who was the          E
  second highest bidder. As per condition No. 6 of the said letter
  of acceptance, the respondent was required to deposit the
  security amount and the first instalment within 21 days from the
  receipt of the letter of acceptance. However, the respondent
  failed to deposit the security amount and the first instalment as    F
- required by the letter of acceptance. Hence, vide Memo No.
  5029 dated 17.12.2008 issued by the Executive Engineer,
   Provincial Division No. Ill, PWD, B&R Branch, Kamal, the letter
  of acceptance was cancelled and withdrawn and the Bid
  Security of Rs. 20 lakhs was forfeited.                              G

     6. It has to be mentioned that before receipt of the letter
 of acceptance, the respondent had sent a letter dated
 15.11.2008 informing the Executive Engineer that the
 respondent was not interested in the work and, therefore, the
                                                                       H
    378   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A amount of Bid Security deposited on 19.9.2008 may be
  refunded. However, the appellants did not consider or act upon
  the said letter dated 15.11.2008 of the respondent, as the
  respondent had agreed to keep its bid open for acceptance
  upto 90 days after the last date of receipt of bid and the said
B period of 90 days had not expired. In this connection, it has
  also to be mentioned that the letter of acceptance dated
  26.11.2008 was issued to the respondent before the expiry of
  the above-mentioned period of 90 days.

       7. After cancellation of the letter of acceptance issued to
C the respondent and after expiry of the above-mentioned period
  of 90 days on 17.12.2008, the Executive Engineer vide Bid
  Notice No. 5160 dated 31.12.2008 re-invited bids for the
  collection of toll at toll point on the Bridge over river Yamuna
  on Karnal-Meerut Road. The respondent again participated in
D the bid, offering an amount of Rs. 4,94,91,810/-. It may be noted
  that the amount offered by the re~pondent in the subsequent
  bid was less than its offer in the first bid with a difference of
  Rs. 3.03 crores. Since the respondent's bid was the highest
  bid among the bids submitted pursuant to the Bid Notice dated
E 31.12.2008, a _letter of acceptance was issued to the
  respondent on 6.2.2009. The respondent deposited the security
  amount and the first instalment in terms of the said letter of
  acceptance.

       8. After the second letter of acceptance dated 6.2.2009
F was issued to the respondent, the respondent on 7.2.2009 filed
  C.W.P. No. 2266 of 2009 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court
  praying for quashing the first letter of acceptance dated
  26.11.2008 of the Executive Engineer and the Memo No. 5029
  dated 17.12.2008 cancelling the said letter of acceptance and
G forfeiting the Bid Security of Rs. 20 lakhs. Even though the
  appellants opposed the grant of prayers in the writ petition, a
  Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 7.7.2009
  allowed the writ petition quashing the letter of acceptance dated
  26.11.2008 and the Memo dated 17.12.2008 and also directed
H
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MALIK TRADERS                   379
            [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
the Executive Engineer (appellant No. 5) to refund the Bid          A
Security amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to the respondent within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
A"ggrieved by the said order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the
High Court in C.W.P. No. 2266 of 2009, the respondents in the
writ petition have filed this appeal.                               B

    ·s. We have considered the pleadings in the case, the
submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties
and the materials placed on record.

       10. For allowing the writ petition, the only reason stated   C
by the High Court is that, since the writ petitioner (respondent
herein) had withdrawn its offer before it was accepted, there
could be no acceptance of the offer and there could not be any
consequence of the petitioner not honouring the commitment.
However, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High court.     D
It is true that as per Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
{hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), a proposal may be
revoked at any time before the communication of its
acceptance is complete as against the proposer. It is also true
that before receipt of the letter of acceptance dated               E
26.11.2008, the respondent had sent a letter dated 15,11.2008
withdrawing its offer. However, admittedly, in paragraph 8 of
the written offer/bid, the respondent had agreed to keep the bid
open for acceptance upto 90 days after the last date of receipt
of bid. The respondent had also agreed that it sh.all be bound      F
by the communication of acceptance of the bid dispatched
within the aforesaid period of 90 days. Hence, the respondent
could not have withdrawn the bid before the expiry of the period
of 90 days. It is not disputed that the acceptance of the
 respondent's bid was communicated to the respondent within         G
 the said period of 90 days. Therefore, the respondent was
 bound by the said acceptance of the bid, despite its withdrawal
 by the respondent in the meanwhile. In paragraph 10 of the
 offer/bid, the respondent had also agreed that the full value of
 the Bid Security would be forfeited without prejudice to any       H
    380    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A other right or remedy ava_ilable to the Executive Engineer or his
  successor in office or his representative, should the respondent
  withdraw or modify its offer/bid during the period of bid validity
  (90 days) or extended validity period. Since the respondent
  withdrew its offer during the period of bid validity in violation of
B the above-mentioned agreement in paragraph 8 of the offer/
  bid, the full value of Bid Security was liable to be forfeited in
  terms of the agreement contained in paragraph 10 of the offer/
  bid. Thus, even though under Section 5 of the Act a proposal
  may be revoked at any time before the communication of its
c acceptance is complete as against the proposer, the
  respondent was bound by the agreement contained in its offer/
  bid to keep the bid open for acceptance upto 90 days after the
  last date of receipt of bid and if the respondent withdrew its
  bid before the expiry of the said period of 90 days the
  respondent was liable to suffer the consequence (i.e. forfeiture
0
  of the full value of Bid Security) as agreed to by the respondent
  in paragraph 10 of the offer/bici. Under the cover of the
  provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act, the respondent
  cannot escape from the obligations and liabilities under the
E agreements contained in its offer/bid. The right to withdraw an
  offer before its acceptance cannot nullify the agreement to
  suffer any penalty for the withdrawal of the offer against the·
  terms of agreement. A person may have a right to withdraw his
  offer, but if he has made his offer on a condition that the Bid
  Security amount can be forfeited in case he withdraws the offer
F during the period of bid validity, he has no right to claim that
  the Bid Security should not be forfeited and it should be
  returned to him. Forfeiture of such Bid Security amount does
  not, in any way, affect any statutory right under Section 5 of the
  Act. The Bid Security was given by the respondent and taken
G by the appellants to ensure that the offer is not withdrawn during
  the bid validity period of 90 days and a contract comes into
  existence. Such conditions are included to ensure that only
  genuine parties make the bids. In the absence of such
  conditions, persons who do not have the capacity or have no
H intention of entering into the contract will make bids. The very
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MALIK TRADERS 381
            [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
purpose of such a condition in the offer/bid will be defeated, if      A
forfeiture is not permitted when the offer is withdrawn in violation
of the agreement.

      11. In taking the above view, we are supported by the
decision of this Court in National Highways Authority of India 8
v. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. [(2003) 7 SCC 41 OJ which was
rendered in a similar case. In the said case, the appellant,
National Highways Authority of India, by a notice, called for
tenders by 31. 7 .1997 for collection of toll on a portion of a
particular highway. The notice provided that toll plazas would C
be got completed by the appellant and handed over to the
selected enterprise. The notice required the bidders to furnish:
(i) a bid security in a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in the form of a bank
draft or bank guarantee, and (ii) a performance security in the
form of a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores. The bid security was
liable to forfeiture in case the bidder withdrew his bid during D
the validity period of the bid or failed within the specified period
to furnish the performance security and sign the agreement. The
bid .was to remain valid for a period of 120- days after the last
date of bid submission. In terms of the tender document, the
respondent firm gave its bid or offer and furnished a bank E
guarantee in a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. It was an "on-demand bank
guarantee" stating that it could be enforced on demand if the
bidder withdrew his bid during the period of bid validity or failed
to furnish the performance security or failed to sign the
agreement. While the validity period of the bid was to end on F
28.11.1997, the respondent withdrew its bid on 20.11.1997 and
did not furnish the performance guarantee. Therefore, the
ai:;pellant although found the respondent to be the highest
bidder and accepted its offer on 21.11.1997, encashed the
bani' guarantee for Rs. 50 lakhs. The respondent then filed a G
writ petition in the High Court for refund of the amount. The High
Court formulated two questions viz.: (a) whether the forfeiture
of security deposit was without authority of la~ and without any
binding contract between the parties and also contrary to _
 Section 5 of the Contract Act; and (b) whether the writ petition H
    382    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   was maintainable in a claim arising out of a breach of contract.
    Without considering Question {b), the High Court allowed the
    writ petition on the ground that the offer was withdrawn before
    it was accepted and thus no completed contract had come into
    existence. The High Court observed that in law a party could
B   always withdraw its offer before acceptance. Therefore, it held
    that the invocation and encashnient of the bank guarantee was
    illegal and void and was liable to be set aside. The appellant
    then approached the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, this
    Court held as follows:
c
          "In our view, the High Court fell in error in so holding. By
          invoking the bank guarantee and/or enforcing the bid
          security, there is no statutory right, exercise of which was
          being fettered. There is no term in the contract which is
          contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The
D
          Indian Contract Act merely provides that a person can
          withdraw his offer before its acceptance. But withdrawal
          of an offer, before it is accepted, is a completely different
          aspect from forfeiture of earnest/security money which has
          been given for a particular purpose. A person may have
E         a right to withdraw his offer but if he has made his offer
          on a condition that some earnest money will be forfeited
          for not entering into contract or if some act is not
          performed, then even though he may have a right to
          withdraw his offer, he has no right to claim that the earnest/
F         security be returned to him. Forfeiture of such earnest/
          security, in no way, affects. any statutory right under the
          Indian Contract Act. Such earnest/security is given and
          taken to ensure that a contract comes into existence. It
          would be an anomalous situation that a person who, by
G         his own conduct, precludes the coming into existence of
          the contract is then given advantage or benefit of his own.
          wrong by not allowing forfeiture. It must be remembered
          that, particularly in government contracts, such a term is
          always included in order to ensure that only a genuine
H         party makes a bid. If such a term was not there even a
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MALIK TRADERS                   383
            [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]

       person who does not have the capacity or a person who        A
       has no intention of entering into the contract will make a
       bid. The whole purpose of such a clause i.e. to see that
       only genuine bids are received would be lost if forfeiture
       was not permitted."
                                                                    B
       We respectfully agree with the above view of this Court.

      12. Hence, the High Court was not justified in quashing the
letter dated 26.11.2008 accepting the bid of the respondent and
the letter dated 17 .12.2008 forfeiting the Bid Security amount
of Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeal is allowed and the order dated C
7.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
C.W.P. No. 2266 of 2009 is set aside. Consequently, the writ
petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

R.P.                                           Appeal allowed.      D