The court established that forfeiture of bid amounts is mandated by M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Rules upon non-deposit within the prescribed timeframe, without provision for accepting late fees.

O R D E R

(Delivered on this day of 7 ^th October, 2025)

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition claiming following reliefs :-

"1) That, this Hon’ble court may kindly set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2/Managing- Director Mp State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vide order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY

20.12.2023(AnnexureP-8).

2) That the respondents may kindly be pleased to direct to complete the process of allotment of plots (Group No.6 plot No. 21 and Group No.3 plot No. 131) of New Laxmiganj Mandi Area, in respect of petitioners by depositing outstanding amount within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 3) That this Hon’ble court may further kindly set aside the NIT dated 08.02.2024 scheduled for dated 21.02.2024 issued by the respondent for auction of the shops (Group No.6 plot No. 21 and Group No.3 plot No. 131) of New Laxmiganj Mandi Area, in respect of petitioners (AnnexureP-1) . 4) That this Hon’ble court may further kindly set aside the resolution passed by the respondent vide dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-10). 5) That, any other relief for doing justice in the matter may kindly be granted.

6) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded."

3. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to NIT dated 25/02/2021 (Annexure P/2) for allotment of plots at new developed vegetable market premises, Laxminganj, they submitted their bids. The bid submitted by the petitioner No. 1 for group No. 6, plot No. 21 was declared to be highest at Rs. 4,35,000/-, whereas, the bid submitted by the petitioner No. 2 for group No. 3, plot No. 131 was declared to be highest at Rs. 4,00,000/- and, therefore, vide notices dated 15/07/2021 & 04/02/2022, petitioners were called upon to deposit the bids amount after deduction of the earnest money for the purpose of allotment.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that due to some unavoidable circumstances, they could not deposit the bids amount within prescribed time limit and, therefore, their bids were declared cancelled and the earnest money deposited by them was forfieted by the respondent No. 3.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though there was some delay on the part of the petitioners in depositing the bids amount, however, the request made by the petitioners to accept the bids amount with late fees was not considered and arbitrarily the bids submitted by the petitioners were cancelled and the earnest money was also forfieted. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of one Radhika Traders being subject matter of same bid proceedings, the respondent No. 3 has accepted their bid amount with late fees (Annexure P/6). However, in the case of the petitioners, no such procedure was adopted. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by impugned action of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred appeal before the Additional Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, which came to be rejected vide order dated 02/12/2023. He further submits that though appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected, but so far as allegation of the petitioners regarding acceptance of bid amount belatedly submitted by Radhika Trader with late fees, enquiry was directed to be done by the Additional Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, but no such enquiry was done. Learned counsel further submits that on the principles of parity, the bids submitted by the petitioners ought to have been accepted by the respondents by leving late fees and accordingly, he submits that relief claimed by the petitioners deserve to be granted.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 by referring to averments made in their return sub