Judgment : Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.09.2001 passed by this Court in OWP No. 232/1999 titled Puran Chand v State of J&K and ors, by virtue whereof writ petition filed by the respondent-Puran Chand was allowed. 2. Puran Chand-Respondent herein submitted his tenders in response to the tender notice floated by appellant No. 4-Executive Engineer vide NIT No. 44 of 1/1998 and NIT No. 45 of 1/1998 both dated 15.01.1998 for construction of Sudha Nalla Diversion-cum- Spill way channel from R.D. 15 -158 of S. H. P. State-III and construction of Sudha Nalla Division-cum-Spill way channel from R.D 158-630 of S.H.P Stage III respectively. He claimed to have quoted Rs. 1775/- and Rs. 1800/- respectively for 1 M. Ton for both the works respectively and subsequently, made applications before respondent No. 2 and before the Contract Committee on 03.03.1998 to treat Rs. 1775/- as Rs. 17750/- and Rs. 1800/- as Rs. 18,000/- respectively against the quoted rates on the ground that there was a clerical mistake in recording the figures. However, allotment orders were issued for the above referred both works in favour of respondent without allowing the necessary correction. Respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards each contract as security for carrying out the terms and conditions of the contract in the event of tenders being accepted. The tenders were opened on 03.03.1998 and immediately, thereafter the respondent submitted that he had committed a clerical error while mentioning the rates at Rs. 1775/- and Rs. 1800/- per M. Ton which in fact were meant to be Rs. 17750/- and Rs. 18000/- Per M. Ton. Respondent claimed to have filed an application on the same date to add zero to both the rates quoted, so as to represent the figures as Rs. 17750/- and Rs. 18000/- respectively. It was claimed on behalf of the respondent that tenders were accepted without taking into consideration his letters for correcting the figures in regard to the rates quoted. The appellants resorted to enforce the clause of forfeiting of security for failure on the part of respondent to comply with the contractual obligation. 17750/- and Rs. 18000/- respectively. It was claimed on behalf of the respondent that tenders were accepted without taking into consideration his letters for correcting the figures in regard to the rates quoted. The appellants resorted to enforce the clause of forfeiting of security for failure on the part of respondent to comply with the contractual obligation. Respondent claimed before the writ Court that he was not at fault and that there was a typing mistake in the offers which were sought to be rectified by suggesting the modification by adding zero to the figures quoted as Rs. 1775/- and Rs. 1800/- per M. Ton and that such modification was suggested before acceptance of the tender. The appellants pleaded before the writ Court that the respondent had moved an application for correction in rates quoted by him after opening of the tenders on 03.03.1998, which could not be allowed. Consequently, the security/earnest money deposited by the respondent was forfeited in terms of clause II of the NIT for failure of respondent in executing the agreement and start the work. The learned Writ Court was of the view that since an offer could be withdrawn before such offer was accepted, the action of appellants in forfeiting the security amount/earnest money could not be supported. The writ petition was allowed and the appellants were directed to refund the security amount/earnest money to the respondent. 3. The impugned judgment formulated by the learned writ Court is assailed on the ground that the learned writ Court has not considered the date of opening of tenders and merely relied upon the date of opening of price bid for making observation in the impugned judgment that the respondent has submitted his application for change of rates before opening of the tenders. It is contended that observations made by the learned writ Court are factually incorrect. It is contended that there was no material before learned writ Court to arrive at the conclusion that the application for change of rates was filed by respondent before the opening of price bid. It is further contended that contractors participating in tendering process could not be allowed to change the rates after opening of price bids as the same would open a flood gate for every contractor having submitted low rates to modify the rates quoted for seeking refund of the security amount. 4. It is further contended that contractors participating in tendering process could not be allowed to change the rates after opening of price bids as the same would open a flood gate for every contractor having submitted low rates to modify the rates quoted for seeking refund of the security amount. 4. Per contra, it is argued that since the respondent sought correction in the rates quoted on the ground of inadvertent error before such offer was accepted, appellants could not resort to enforcement of the forfeiture clause in respect of the security/earnest money. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The question for consideration is whether the security deposit could be forfeited in the wake of modification sought by the respondent in the price quoted in the tender documents. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent had submitted two tender documents together with the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- each. The tender was to be opened on 3rd March, 1998. It is also not in controversy that the respondent pointed out the error in quoting the prices in each bid. He claimed that he had quoted as Rs.1775/-and Rs. 1800/- per M. Ton inadvertently omitting to add zero and that the correct figure should be Rs.17,750/- and Rs. 18,000/- per M. Ton. As per his own showing the respondent pointed out the error in bids after opening of the tenders. He claimed to have filed an application for rectification of the error on that very day. The Finance Wing of the appellant-Corporation was of the opinion that the prices quoted were handwritten and the same could not be treated as a typographical error. Thus, the application of the respondent came to be rejected. Tenders submitted by the respondent were accepted. Since respondent failed to execute the work which was subsequently re-allotted to other eligible tenderers, security deposits/earnest money deposited by the respondent alongwith the tenders were forfeited in terms of Clause II of the NIT. 8. Perusal of the letter forming annexure H to the record of writ petition brings it to fore that allotment had been made in favour of the respondent as the lowest bidder/tenderer in terms of allotment order dated 30.04.1998 and the same was allowed to stand after the appellants declined to accede to his request for modification of the prices quoted. 9. 9. In view of the fact that subsequent to the opening of tenders, works had been allotted in favour of respondent as the lowest bidder/tenderer in terms of allotment order dated 30.04.1998, learned Writ Court was not justified in treating the aforesaid letter as letter of acceptance of the tenders. Learned writ Court was also not justified in arriving at the conclusion that acceptance of the tender submitted by the respondent was without taking into consideration letter dated 03.03.1998 written by the respondent for modification of the rates quoted in the price bids. It is not disputed that the respondent sought modification in the prices quoted in the tenders offered in response to NIT after the tenders were opened on 03.03.1998. Price bids submitted by respondent, being lowest were accepted. The question for consideration is whether, in the given circumstances, respondent would be within his rights to withdraw his tenders after same were accepted. Assuming for the sake of argument that the letter written by respondent after opening of the bids on 03.03.1998 for revision/ modification in the price quoted by adding zero to inflate the figure from Rs.1775/- to Rs.17750/- and Rs. 1800/- to Rs.18000/- per M. Ton was in exercise of right to withdraw the tenders, the million dollar question would be whether a tenderer would be permitted to withdraw the tender/bid after the competitive bids have been opened for scrutiny. The answer should be an emphatic No . It is so because, the tenders/bids offered by competitive bidders are confidential documents filed under the veil of secrecy and the tenderer cannot be permitted to alter, change or revise the rates quoted in the tender documents after the same have been opened for scrutiny. Prices quoted by the competitive bidders become known after opening of the tenders in presence of the tenderers or other authorized representatives and no tenderer can be permitted to gain undue advantage after the rates quoted by the competitive bidders become public. Rectification of errors and omissions in the tenders/bids prior to opening of the tenders rests at a different footing and the same may be allowed in appropriate cases. 10. Rectification of errors and omissions in the tenders/bids prior to opening of the tenders rests at a different footing and the same may be allowed in appropriate cases. 10. Viewed thus, in the instant case appellants were justified in declining to allow the revision in rates quoted in the two documents submitted by the respondent after the tenders/bids were opened for scrutiny and the tenders submitted by respondent were accepted as being the lowest which culminated in issuing of allotment order dated 30.04.1998. Therefore, view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondent could withdraw the offer cannot be accepted in the instant case. 11. Now coming to the aspect of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- each made by the respondent, be it seen that the contract Act merely provides that a person can withdraw his offer before it is accepted. However, withdrawal of an offer is completely different from forfeiture of security deposit/earnest money which has been made for a particular purpose. In National Highway Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 410 the Hon ble Apex Court held as under:- 9. A person may have 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/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 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 party makes a bid. If such a term was not there even a person who does not have a capacity or a person who has no intention of entering into the contract will make a bid. It must be remembered that, particularly in government contracts, such a term is always included in order to ensure that only a genuine party makes a bid. If such a term was not there even a person who does not have a capacity or a person who 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 . 12. The only ground weighing with the learned writ Court in allowing the writ petition was that since the respondent had a right to withdraw his tender before its acceptance and since he had suggested a modification of the original terms, the forfeiture clause could not be enforced. We find ourselves unable to subscribe to this view. Undoubtedly, a proposal may be revoked at any time before communication of its acceptance. This is the mandate of law engrafted under Section 5 of Contract Act. It is undisputable that the acceptance of bids was communicated to respondent who, apart from seeking modification in rates quoted in tenders which was rejected, did not seek withdrawal of offer. Respondent had agreed that the value of bid security would stand forfeited for not executing the agreement and the works allotted. The bid values were liable to be forfeited under the terms and conditions of the tender documents. Thus, the respondent was bound by the terms and conditions of the tender documents and could not escape the consequences flowing from not adherence thereto. The obligations and liabilities under the terms and conditions of the tender documents were enforceable and the respondent could not wriggle out of the same. It would be profitable to refer to the following observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. M/s Malik Traders reported in 2011 AIR SC 3574:- 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. It would be profitable to refer to the following observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. M/s Malik Traders reported in 2011 AIR SC 3574:- 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 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations and the settled legal position the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Respondent cannot escape the penalty of incurring forfeiture of the security deposits for having failed to draw the agreement with appellant and start the work allotted in his favour. Forfeiture of security deposits/earnest money having been done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT, we find no merit in the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10th September, 2001 is set aside.