WRIT PETITION NO. 22383 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the reply dated 18.06.2025 given by Respondent No.3 at Annexure-C and consequently, quash the forfeiture order dated 01.02.2024 bearing No.04/Depot Sales/0404301223/Forfeiture at Annexure-E.

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the Respondents to refund the EMD amount Rs.3,51,975/- and part payment Rs.15,54,690/- amount i.e., paid in Annexure-F, forthwith.

c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No.2 conducted an e-auction on 21.12.2023 for the sale of 97.5 Metric Tonnes of metal scrap. The petitioner participated in the said auction and emerged as the highest/successful bidder with a bid amount of ₹35,19,750/-.

3. In terms of the conditions governing the auction, the petitioner was required to deposit an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) equivalent to 10% of the bid amount. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of ₹3,51,975/- towards EMD. As per the bid conditions and the bid sheet furnished by the respondents, the balance 90% of the sale consideration was required to be paid within fifteen days from the date of auction, namely, on or before 04.01.2024.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, though the balance sale consideration was not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner made a part payment of ₹15,54,690/- on 24.01.2024. On the very same day, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking extension of time for payment of the remaining amount, contending that transportation activities had been severely affected on account of a transport strike prevailing in Karnataka as well as in other parts of the country, thereby adversely impacting its ability to complete the transaction within the prescribed period.

5. Thereafter, on 01.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a further representation seeking extension of time, inter alia, on the ground that it was facing financial constraints and required additional time to mobilise the funds necessary for payment of the balance sale consideration.

6. The respondents, however, did not accede to the request made by the petitioner. Instead, the respondents proceeded to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit of ₹3,51,975/- as well as the part payment of ₹15,54,690/- already remitted by the petitioner towards the sale consideration.

7. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.12816/2024. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking note of the contention that the representations submitted by the petitioner had not been duly considered by the respondents, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner.

8. Pursuant thereto, the respondents claim to have considered the representations and thereafter issued the impugned communication dated 18.06.2025 reiterating and affirming the earlier decision of forfeiture taken on 01.02.2024.

9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents in forfeiting both the Earnest Money Deposit and the part payment made towards the sale consideration, as also the consequential communication dated 18.06.2025 whereby the respondents have declined to interfere with or reconsider the forfeiture already effected.

10. Sri Muhammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that

10.1. Immediately upon realising that the balance sale consideration could not be remitted within the period stipulated under the auction conditions, the petitioner, by his representation dated 24.01.2024, sought extension of ti