STATEMENT OF FACT

 The petitioner, R. K. Association, previously held the esteemed status of an "A" Class
Contractor within the Public Works Department (PWD) Uttar Pradesh, a recognition
earned through demonstrated capability and reliability in executing government projects.
However, their subsequent actions triggered a chain of events that ultimately led to their
removal from the roster of approved contractors.

 Upon the issuance of a tender invitation by the PWD, the petitioner duly submitted a bid
for a construction project, a bid that, upon careful scrutiny, emerged as the lowest and
most reasonable among the submissions. The Superintending Engineer, after thorough
evaluation, recommended acceptance of the petitioner's tender to the Chief Engineer on
17-11-2010, signaling the potential commencement of a mutually beneficial contractual
agreement.

 However, to the bewilderment of the PWD, the petitioner abruptly retracted their tender
offer before it could be formally accepted at a higher administrative level. This sudden
withdrawal came as a surprise, given the petitioner's initial commitment to the tender
process and their previously demonstrated capability in executing government projects.

 In response to the petitioner's withdrawal, the PWD rightfully invoked the clauses
stipulated within the tender document, specifically addressing the repercussions of such
actions. The tender document explicitly outlined the consequences of withdrawal,
including the forfeiture of earnest money, a measure deemed necessary to deter frivolous
bidding and ensure the integrity of the tendering process.

 Despite the clear contractual obligations delineated within the tender document, the
petitioner contested the forfeiture of the earnest money, erroneously asserting their right
to retract the tender before its acceptance. Furthermore, they challenged the validity of a
clause within the tender document, alleging lack of awareness or acknowledgment at the
time of submission.
 However, from the respondent's unwavering perspective, the petitioner's withdrawal
necessitated appropriate disciplinary measures. The forfeiture of earnest money was not a
punitive measure but rather a natural consequence of breaching contractual commitments.
Moreover, the petitioner's removal from the list of approved contractors was a justified
response to their failure to comply with essential government directives regarding
solvency certificates and undertakings, prerequisites aimed at ensuring the financial
stability and reliability of contractors entrusted with public projects.

 Furthermore, the respondent emphasizes the government's inherent prerogative to reject

tenders without the obligation to provide detailed justifications, underscoring the
discretionary authority vested in governmental bodies to safeguard public interests and
maintain the integrity of procurement processes.

 In summary, the respondent steadfastly upholds the principles of contractual integrity,

regulatory compliance, and prudent governance, asserting the need for accountability and
unwavering adherence to established procedures in all facets of tender processes.
ISSUE 2:
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner's entitlement to revoke the tender hinges on the
contractual agreement and its enforceability. The conditions laid out in the tender document
clearly stipulate a timeframe within which the offer must remain open for acceptance. The
petitioner willingly entered into this agreement and cannot unilaterally revoke the offer before
the specified period elapses.

Moreover, allowing the petitioner to revoke the tender undermines the integrity of the tendering
process and the principle of fairness. The purpose of setting a timeframe for offer validity is to
ensure that the procuring authority has sufficient time to evaluate and consider all submitted
bids. Allowing contractors to withdraw their offers at will would disrupt this process and could
lead to inefficiencies and unfairness in awarding contracts.

Furthermore, the petitioner's argument that the clause regarding offer validity was not made
known to them does not hold water. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that parties are
bound by the terms of a contract they willingly enter into, regardless of whether they were aware
of all its provisions at the time of entering into the contract.

In conclusion, the petitioner was not entitled to revoke the tender as per the terms laid out in the
tender document. Upholding the validity of the tender and enforcing the agreed-upon conditions
ensures fairness and integrity in the procurement process. Therefore, the forfeiture of earnest
money by the respondent was justified in this case.