JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition and an application for interim relief made therein have been taken up for hearing. The writ petitioner has asked for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 39,91,535/- deposited by the writ petitioner against e-tender for construction of work of Purbabishnupur-Raidighi Road-Chainage from 0.00 KMP to 19.630 KMP strengthening work in the district of 24 Parganas (South). 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner participated in the e-tender dated July 11, 2018 issued by the Public Works (Roads) Directorate. He has referred to the bid validity clause of the tender documents. He has submitted that, the bid tender clause requires the bid to remain valid for a period not less than 120 days from the date of submission of the bid. The clause proceeds to lay down that, if the bidder withdraws the bid during the period of bid validity, his earnest deposit will be forfeited. He has referred to the letter dated December 13, 2018 by which, the petitioner placed on record that, the petitioner submitted the bid on August 3, 2018. The validity period of the bid expired on November 30, 2018 on expiry of 120 days from the date of submission of the bid. Consequently, the petitioner wanted cancellation of the bid and refund of the earnest money deposit. He has submitted that, the authorities purported to accept the bid of the petitioner on December 3, 2018. Consequently, the petitioner having withdrawn the bid after the expiry of 120 days from the date of submission of the bid, the purported acceptance is invalid. He has referred to the letter dated November 26, 2018 of the authorities and has submitted that, the claim that, such acceptance of bid was posted on November 26, 2018 is belied from the document at page 80 of the writ petition. He has referred to Sections 3 and 4 of the Contract Act, 1872 and submitted that, since, the bid of the petitioners stood withdrawn subsequent to the expiry of 120 days from the date of submission of the bid, the purported acceptance of the bid is of no consequence. Therefore, the authorities cannot invoke the provisions of the bid validity clause in the tender documents to forfeit the earnest money deposit or to take any coercive measure against the petitioner. The show-cause notice dated March 20, 2019 therefore is bad. Therefore, the authorities cannot invoke the provisions of the bid validity clause in the tender documents to forfeit the earnest money deposit or to take any coercive measure against the petitioner. The show-cause notice dated March 20, 2019 therefore is bad. He has relied upon All India Reporter 1966 SC 543 (Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharlal Parshottamdas and Co.) and All India Reporter 2006 Bombay page 231 (Pacific Refractories Ltd. v. Stein Heurtey India Projects Pvt. Ltd.) in support of his contentions. He has submitted that, the show-cause notice as also the purported forfeiture of the earnest money deposit should be quashed. The authority should be directed to refund the earnest money deposit forthwith. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the State has relied upon the Bid Validity Clause and Clause A.11 relating to award of contract of the tender documents. He has referred to the conduct of the petitioner and submitted that, the bid of the petitioner was accepted within the validity period prescribed under the tender conditions. 4. Therefore, there was no bar in issuing the work order in favour of the petitioner. He has relied upon Clause 30 of the Tender Clause relating to forfeiture of earnest money. He has submitted that, Clause 30(b) of the tender documents was invoked for the purpose of forfeiting the earnest money deposit. He has referred to the show-cause notice and submitted that, the show-cause notice cannot be a subject matter of the writ petition through an interim application as such show-cause notice has no nexus with the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. He has referred to the various pleadings made on this behalf in the affidavit-in-opposition. He has submitted that, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. The Public Works (Roads) Directorate had issued a notice inviting electronic tender no. 47 of 2018-2019 dated July 11, 2018. The petitioner had participated in such tender process. The e-tender process had contemplated that, a participant must qualify in the technical bid and thereafter must be declared as the lowest tenderer in the financial bid. The petitioner had qualified in the technical bid on August 16, 2018 and found to be the lowest bidder in the financial bid of the subject e-tender on August 20, 2018. The e-tender had required a participant to deposit earnest money. In terms of such e-tender, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. The petitioner had qualified in the technical bid on August 16, 2018 and found to be the lowest bidder in the financial bid of the subject e-tender on August 20, 2018. The e-tender had required a participant to deposit earnest money. In terms of such e-tender, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 39,91,535/- with the respondent No. 6 on July 28, 2018. The terms and conditions of the e-tender had required a participant to keep the bid valid for 120 days from the date of submission of the bid. 6. The petitioner has contended that, the respondents did not award the contract within the validity period of the bid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to refund of the earnest money deposited. The contentions of the respondents are to be contrary. According to them, the bid was accepted within the validity period under the subject e-tender. 7. The relevant terms and conditions of the subject e-tender are as follows:- "BID VALIDITY 10. BID shall remain valid for a period not less than 120 days (One Hundred Twenty Days) from the last date of submission of Financial Bid/ Sealed Bid. If the Bidder withdraws the Bid during the period of Bid validity his Earnest Money Deposit will be forfeited. ........................... 30. The Earnest Money may be forfeited - (a) If the Bidder withdraws the Bid during the period of Bid validity. (b) In case of a successful Bidder, if the Bidder fails within the specified time limit to Sign the agreement. During scrutiny or at any stage of bidding or even after award of contract, if it is come to the notice to Tender inviting authority that the credential or any other papers found incorrect/manufactured/fabricated. (c) If the bidder fails to submit the Additional Performance Security (if any) within seven working days from the date of issuance of Letter of Acceptance. (d) If the bidder fails to install plant & machineries within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of issue of the Work-order. All works covered in the clause appearing hereinafter shall be deemed to form a part of the appropriate item or items of works appearing in the work schedule whether specifically mentioned in any clause or not and the rates quoted shall include all such works unless it is otherwise mentioned that extra payment will be made for particular works." 8. All works covered in the clause appearing hereinafter shall be deemed to form a part of the appropriate item or items of works appearing in the work schedule whether specifically mentioned in any clause or not and the rates quoted shall include all such works unless it is otherwise mentioned that extra payment will be made for particular works." 8. Under the terms and conditions of the tender therefore, an aspirant has to keep the bid valid for a minimum of 120 days. In the event, an aspirant withdraws the bid during such period then, his earnest money deposit can be forfeited. 9. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted the bid on August 3, 2018. 120 days from then, therefore, expired on November 30, 2018. The petitioner by a writing dated December 3, 2018 had asked for cancellation of the bid and refund of the earnest money deposit. In response thereto, by a letter dated December 4, 2018, the respondents had contended that, the letter of acceptance was issued by the concerned Circle Officer after issuance of necessary Government Order on September 19, 2018. The letter of acceptance is dated November 26, 2018. The same was posted on November 26, 2018 well within the validity period of the bid and before the cancellation of the bid by the petitioner on December 3, 2018. As against the petitioner, its offer was accepted by the respondents within the validity period and before the cancellation of the same. Therefore, a binding contract came into being between the petitioner and respondent on November 26, 2018 when, the respondent accepted the offer of the petitioner. The letter of acceptance may have been received by the petitioner subsequently. On December 3, 2018 when, the petitioner chose to cancel its offer, it was not entitled to do so, without incurring consequences with regard thereto. The petitioners have placed on record the downloaded page from the website with regard to the tender process. The download is dated December 3, 2018. Such download was updated at 4.29 p.m. on December 3, 2018. It appears from such downloaded page that, the respondents had accepted the bid of the petitioner on November 26, 2018. 10. Acceptance of the bid of the petitioner by the respondent is complete as against the respondent, on November 26, 2018 when the respondent posted the acceptance of the bid letter to the petitioner. It appears from such downloaded page that, the respondents had accepted the bid of the petitioner on November 26, 2018. 10. Acceptance of the bid of the petitioner by the respondent is complete as against the respondent, on November 26, 2018 when the respondent posted the acceptance of the bid letter to the petitioner. A binding contract between the petitioner and the respondents came into being on November 26, 2018 with the despatch of the letter of acceptance by the respondents. Receipt of such letter of acceptance by the petitioner subsequent to its letter dated December 3, 2018 is of no consequence as on December 3, 2018 the bid of the petitioner stood accepted. The letter of acceptance was received by the petitioner on December 6, 2018. 11. Pacific Refractories Ltd. (supra) has dealt with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to determination of the territorial jurisdiction of a Court to receive a plaint. In so dealing, it has also dealt with whether, absence of the words "only" "alone" or "exclusively" in the forum selection clause of a contract divest such clause of any meaning or not. It has held in the facts of that case that, the clause in the contract confined the jurisdiction of the Court to the Calcutta High Court in respect of disputes arising from the contract and excluded the jurisdiction of other Courts. 12. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia (supra) has considered Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Contract Act, 1872 in the context of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has held that, "making of an offer at a place which has been accepted elsewhere does not form part of the cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of the contract". It has gone on to say that, "ordinarily, it is the acceptance of offer and intimation of that acceptance which result in a contract. By intimating an offer, when the parties are not in the presence of whichever, the offeror is deemed to be making the offer continuously till the offer reaches the offeree. The offeror thereby merely intimates his intention to enter into the contract on the terms of the offer. The offeror cannot impose upon the offeree an obligation to accept, nor proclaim that silence of the offeree shall be deemed to be consent. The offeror thereby merely intimates his intention to enter into the contract on the terms of the offer. The offeror cannot impose upon the offeree an obligation to accept, nor proclaim that silence of the offeree shall be deemed to be consent. A contract being the result of an offer made by one party and acceptance of that very offer by the other, acceptance of the offer and intimation of acceptance by some external manifestation which the law regards as sufficient is necessary." 13. Section 4 of the Contract Act, 1972 deals with the situations when, communication is said to be complete. According to it, the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. In the facts of the present case, the proposer is the petitioner. Its proposal is the submission of the bid. The proposal was valid till November 30, 2018. It was accepted by the respondents before November 30, 2018. The communication of the acceptance as against the petitioner was completed when, such acceptance was put in course of transmission to the petitioner so as to be out of the power of the respondents. In the facts of the present case, the letter of acceptance was sent through post on November 26, 2018 on which date, the communication was out of the power of the respondents. 14. In the pending writ petition the writ petitioner has applied for stay of operation of a show cause notice dated March 29, 2019 by way of an application being C.A.N. 3269 of 2019. By the show cause notice dated March 20, 2019, the respondents have proposed to proceed for suspension of the petitioner from participating in any procurement process under the Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal. The show cause notice cannot be said to be without any basis. The petitioner is at liberty to reply to show cause notice. The authorities are at liberty to decide on the show cause notice in accordance with law. 15. C.A.N. 3269 of 2019 and W.P. No. 863 (W) of 2019 are disposed of. No order as to costs. 16. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment and order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.