Bombay High Court
M/S Ssjk Infra Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
(1) wp4592.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 WRIT PETITION NO. 4592 OF 2022
M/s. SSJK Infra, ...PETITIONER
Ground Floor, D. No. 40-9-61,
Sub-Registrar Office Road,
Kalanagar, Vijaywada 520 010
Through its Authorised Person,
Mr. P. Shri Hari,
Age-51 years, Occu-Business,
R/o. H. No. 2-21, Hangara Faram (Post),
Kotagiri Mandal, Nizambad (Andhra Pradesh)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS
Through Secretary,
Forest And Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Collector for District Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
Mr. Shailesh P. Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 04th May, 2022
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The learned AGP waives service of notice
1 of 4
(2) wp4592.22.odt
for the respondents/State.
3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for
writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to refund
the amount of Rs. 25,20,150/- alongwith 12% interest
from the date of deposit of amount till realization
within stipulated period.
4. Respondent No.2 had issued tender notice of
16 sand spots as per policy dated 28-01-2022. On 17-
02-2022, the petitioner participated in the auction
proceeding and deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e.
Rs. 25,20,150/- for two sand spots i.e. Shelgaon-1
and Shelgaon-2. On the next date the corrigendum
came to be issued by the respondent whereby
suspending the auction of the sand spots. The
respondents have admittedly not issued any program.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that
since the respondents have already suspended the
said auction by the decision dated 04-03-2022 and
Nagpur Bench of this Court has granted stay from
proceeding with auction till 09-06-2022 and since
the period of auction under the contract if would
have been awarded, same would have been expired on
10-06-2022, the respondents cannot be allowed to
retain the earnest money deposited by the petitioner
alongwith tender.
2 of 4
(3) wp4592.22.odt
5. The respondents have not disputed that the
respondent had issued corrigendum whereby suspending
the auction of the sand spots in question for which
the petitioner had submitted its bid. The respondent
have not disputed that Nagpur Bench of this Court
has granted stay for the proceeding with the auction
till 09-06-2022. Even if the contract would have
been awarded to the any of the successful bidder,
the contract even otherwise would have come to an
end on 10-06-2022.
6. In our view the respondents thus, cannot be
allowed to retain the earnest money deposited by the
petitioner whether on the ground that the petitioner
was unsuccessful bidder or in view of the
corrigendum issued by the respondents whereby
suspending auction for sand spots for which the
petitioner had applied by submitting its bid. In our
view, the respondents have illegally withheld the
payment made by the petitioner. Accordingly, we pass
following order:
ORDER
i. Respondent No.2 is directed to refund
the amount of Rs.25,20,150/- to the
petitioner within four weeks from today
3 of 4
(4) wp4592.22.odt
without fail. If the amount is not refunded
within stipulated period, the respondents
will be liable to pay interest at the rate
of 12% from the date of deposit till
realization.
ii. The writ petition is allowed in
aforesaid terms.
iii. Rule is made absolute.
iv. No order as to costs.
v. Parties to act upon authenticated copy
of this order.
[S. G. MEHARE, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
VishalK/wp4592.22.odt
4 of 4
