Comprehensive Arguments from the Respondent's Side:

1. Enforceability of Contractual Terms: The respondent argues that the petitioner, by

participating in the tender process, entered into a contractual agreement with the
government, which included specific terms and conditions. Clause XI of the tender explicitly
stated the validity period for offers, and by submitting a tender, the petitioner agreed to
abide by these terms. Therefore, the respondent was justified in enforcing the terms of the
contract, including the forfeiture of earnest money, when the petitioner withdrew their offer
within the prescribed validity period.

Case Law: In Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, the Supreme Court held that parties to a
contract are bound by its terms, and contractual obligations must be fulfilled in good faith. The
petitioner's withdrawal from the tender within the validity period constitutes a breach of contract,
warranting the enforcement of contractual remedies by the respondent.

2. Authority to Impose Special Conditions: The respondent contends that they are empowered
to frame rules and conditions for conducting departmental business, including the
imposition of special conditions in tender documents. The inclusion of Clause XI, specifying
the validity period for offers, was a legitimate exercise of this authority. The petitioner's
attempt to revoke their offer within the validity period contravenes the terms agreed upon in
the tender document, and therefore, the respondent's actions, including the forfeiture of
earnest money, were lawful and justified.

Case Law: In State of Maharashtra v. Associated Contractors, the Bombay High Court upheld the
authority of government agencies to impose special conditions in tender documents, provided they
are reasonable and in the public interest. The inclusion of Clause XI in the tender document falls
within the ambit of this authority, and the respondent's enforcement of its terms is lawful.

3. Policy Considerations: The respondent argues that the enforcement of contractual terms,
including the forfeiture of earnest money, serves important policy considerations in ensuring
fairness and transparency in government procurement processes. Allowing tenderers to
withdraw their offers at will would undermine the integrity of the tender process and could
lead to unfair advantages for certain parties. By upholding the validity period specified in
Clause XI, the respondent promotes accountability and integrity in government contracts.

Case Law: In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of fairness and transparency in administrative actions, particularly in
matters of government contracts. Upholding the enforcement of contractual terms, such as the
validity period for offers, aligns with these principles and ensures equitable treatment of all parties
involved.

4. Non-compliance with Government Orders: The respondent further asserts that the
petitioner's removal from the list of 'A' Class Contractors was not solely based on the
withdrawal from the tender but also due to non-compliance with government orders
regarding the furnishing of solvency certificates and undertakings. This non-compliance
justified the respondent's decision to revoke the petitioner's 'A' class certificate and take
necessary actions, including the forfeiture of fixed deposit receipts pledged as security for
enlistment.

Case Law: In State of West Bengal v. Associated Contractors, the Calcutta High Court upheld the
authority of government departments to enforce compliance with statutory requirements and
government orders as conditions for contractor eligibility. The petitioner's failure to comply with
these requirements provided a valid basis for the respondent's actions.

By presenting these comprehensive arguments, the respondent seeks to demonstrate the

justification and lawfulness of their actions in forfeiting the fixed deposit receipts and canceling the
petitioner's 'A' class certificate. These arguments emphasize the enforceability of contractual terms,
the respondent's authority to impose special conditions, policy considerations in government
procurement, and the petitioner's non-compliance with statutory requirements as grounds for their
actions.