The interpretation of contractual clauses, especially those with specified time limits, should be strictly adhered to, and the word 'issued' should be interpreted in a manner that serves the intended purpose of the provision.

F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

We heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondent.

The short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is as to the interpretation of Clause 30 of Sandalwood Sale Notice Conditions in respect of Tirupattur Forest Sandalwood Sale Depot in North Arcot Ambedkar District in Rc.No.4255/96 S.

2. The said Clause 30 reads as under:

"30.The successful bidder shall not withdraw his bid provided orders accepting his bid are issued within sixty days from the date of sale. If the successful bidder withdraws his offer the sandalwood will be resold at his risk and any loss that may be sustained by the Government on that account of such resale shall be made good by the defaulter but he will not be entitled to any profit that the Government may derive from such resale."

3. As per the said clause, a successful bidder cannot withdraw his bid if his bid had been accepted within sixty days from the date of sale and orders accepting his bid are issued within the said time limit. Therefore, in regard to the acceptance of the bid, if the orders are not issued within the time limit of sixty days, the successful bidder is free to withdraw his bid. In the event of successful bidder withdrawing his bid, in contravention of the above said condition, then the Sandalwood would be resold at his risk and any loss sustained by the Government on account of such resale should be made good by the defaulter though he will not be entitled to any profit that may be derived by the Government from such resale.

4. In the case on hand, the respondent herein is stated to have submitted his bid pursuant to the said Sale Notice Conditions in the auction held on 19-6-1996. The appellant claims that the bid was confirmed in favour of the respondent on 15-8-1996, that a telegram to that effect was sent to the respondent on 16-8-1996, that post copy in confirmation of the said telegram was sent to the respondent and the same was acknowledged by it on 22-8-1996, that the details of the payment orders were issued on 21-8-1996 which was acknowledged by the respondent on 26-8-1996, that no payment was made by the respondent as per Clause 9 of the Sale Notice Conditions and thereby the default conditions contained in the said clause got attracted, that necessary notice to comply with the default conditions was issued on 6-11-1996 and that only thereafter, by a telegram dated 26-11-1996, the respondent sought for cancellation of the confirmation orders as the same came to be issued beyond 60 days time. Thereafter, the appellant issued a show cause notice dated 26-12-1996 and followed it by a letter dated 28-3-1997, invoking condition No.9 of the Sale Notice Conditions and ordered forfeiture of a sum of Rs.13,20,000/- deposited by the respondent and also informing that the lot would be resold at their own risk in public auction.

5. When the said order was challenged in W.P.No.8389 of 1997, the learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant failed to issue the confirmation of bid within the stipulated time limit of 60 days as provided under Clause No.30 of the Sale Notice Conditions and therefore the forfeiture order and invocation of other default conditions cannot be sustained. The learned Judge accordingly set aside the order of the appellant dated 28-3-1997. While reaching the above said conclusion, the learned Judge took note of the fact that the order of confirmation pursuant to the auction held on 19-6-1996 was not communicated to the petitioner within the stipulated time limit of 60 days as the confirmation said to have been made through the telegram dated 16-8-1996 was sent to a different address, than the one given by the respondent, which came to be returned by the Telegraphic Authorities, that as per the records, the acceptance of the bid can be said to have been issued by the appellant only on 26-8-1996 which was beyond 60 days time prescribed under Clause 30 of the Sale Notice Conditions and i