Failure to comply with the stipulated deposit time can lead to forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit. Misrepresentation of facts and suppression of material facts can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition.

The petitioner-Kartar Mineral & Steel Private Ltd. has preferred the writ petition seeking a direction for refund of an amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 of Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.), deposited for allotment of 500 MT coal in Siding of M Junction.

2. The petitioner has claimed that it participated in M Junction bidding in which 500 MT coal was allotted for which, an amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 was to be deposited on or before 07.02.2013. The petitioner tried its level best to deposit the said amount on 07.02.2013 through RTGS in the account of respondent-CCL however, due to some technical problem the bank could not transmit the amount through RTGS. The said amount was however, deposited in the account of respondent-CCL by NEFT. The said amount was debited from the account of the petitioner on 07.02.2013 however, it could be transferred through NEFT in the account of respondent-CCL on 08.02.2013. The respondent-CCL refused to release the coal and the EMD to the tune of Rs. 22,15,410.00. On 12.02.2013, the petitioner submitted application to respondent no.2 seeking refund of EMD amount debited from the account of petitioner on 07.02.2013 however, the said amount was not released. Again on 19.03.2013, the petitioner approached the respondent no.1 requesting refund of EMD of Rs. 22,15,410.00.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-CCL stating that in the e-auction conducted through M Junction on 30.01.2013, the petitioner booked 500 MT coal for which the successful bidder was required to deposit the value of coal in the account of CCL within 7 days from the date of e-auction. The e-auction condition stipulates that on failure to deposit the amount, the Earnest Money Deposit is liable to be forfeited. After having accepting the terms and conditions of e-auction by participating in the e-auction, a bidder is bound by the condition of e-auction scheme. The petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 on or before 07.02.2013 however, the said amount was credited in the account of CCL only on 08.02.2013 and therefore, the transaction was invalidated and the petitioner was not permitted to lift the coal. The petitioner at the time of participation in e-auction was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000.00 as Earnest Money and the balance amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 was required to be deposited on or before 07.02.2013. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time, the Earnest Money amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 was forfeited however, on the request of the petitioner, the balance amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 received in the account of CCL on 08.02.2013, was adjusted towards the value of the coal against the bid amount for another e-auction through application no. 250494 dated 03.04.2013.

4. Faced with the serious allegation of suppression of material facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to communication dated 04/05.04.2013 and submitted that though in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 has been adjusted on 03.04.2013, the letter dated 04/05.04.2013 of the General Manager (Sales & Marketing), CCL does not refer to the same and thus, it is respondent CCL which has made false statement in the counter-affidavit. On a careful scrutiny of letter dated 04/05.04.2013 and the counter-affidavit filed by respondent-CCL, I find that there is no contradiction in the statement made in the counter-affidavit and the letter dated 04/05.04.2013. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-CCL has taken a stand that the petitioner participated in a subsequent e-auction through application no. 250494 dated 03.04.2013 in which also, the petitioner was a successful bidder and the amount of Rs. 22,15,410.00 credited in the account of CCL on 08.02.2013 was adjusted towards the balance amount of the subsequent e-auction. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-CCL has nowhere asserted that the said amount was adjusted