The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in forfeiting the EMD amount was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents assisted by Ms. Saumya Pandey, Advocate.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

(a) For a direction upon the respondents to issue the delivery order to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to lift the coal for which the petitioner has made its bid under e-auction and was declared successful also, but due to bonafide inadvertent mistake, the balance amount deposited towards the said bid after adjustment of the earnest money was transferred to the Bank Account of the Respondent at Bachra Branch and not at Ranchi Branch and for which in a most arbitrary and unreasonable manner, the petitioner is being held defaulter and consequently has been debarred from issuance of delivery order and lifting the coal, although the entire money is deposited and lying in the CCL Sales Realisation Account of the Respondents itself.

(b) For a direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how, why and under what authority of law the respondents are trying to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of participating in the bid, when admittedly none of the terms and conditions as postulated in clause 9 of the special terms and conditions have not been violated which deals with forfeiture of earnest money and otherwise also, since the entire remittance has been made by the petitioner against the bid, the petitioner cannot be termed to be a defaulter in terms of the special terms and condition of the e-auction.

(c) For a direction upon the respondents to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of participating in the e-auction bid, which the Respondents are seeking to forfeit, although no written communication has been given to the petitioner, without any fault of the petitioner.

(d) For an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letters dated 16.08.2012 and 06.10.2012, whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner stood rejected, unilaterally without taking into consideration that forfeiture of Earnest Money deposited in the present facts is not contemplated under the e-auction scheme 2007.”

2. At the outset counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his writ petition only to the claim of refund of security money.

ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under :-

a. The petitioner had participated pursuant to two e-auction notices issued by the respondents and the e-auction were held on 27.6.2012 and 29.6.2012 and is governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the e-auction notice. As per clause 2 and 2.5 of the terms and conditions of e-auction notice, the petitioner was supposed to get himself registered and deposit earnest money (EMD) in terms of clause 2.5. He submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner had deposited the earnest money to the full satisfaction of the respondents and thereafter the petitioner was declared successful.

b. As per the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the balance amount in terms of clause – 6 of the terms and conditions. He further submits that while depositing the balance amount after being declared successful, there was an error on his part as the amount was deposited in bank account of the respondent at Bachra Branch of Punjab National Bank, at Bachra, instead of bank account of the respondents at Ranchi Branch of Punjab National Bank, at Ranchi. The head office of the respondents is situated at Ranchi.

c. He further submits that as soon as he was declared successful and after depositing the aforesaid amount with the respondents although in another account of respondents, he approached the respondents for the purposes of delivery of coal and upon which it came to light that the amount in relation