[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 20.03.2026 vs State Of H. P. & Ors on 20 March, 2026
2026:HHC:8485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 3352 of 2026
.
Date of decision: 20.03.2026
Karan Mehan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:
rt Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent No.
1.
Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for
respondents No. 3 to 6.
G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
For the averments made in the application, the delay
of 18 days in re-filing the petition is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
3. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the
forfeiture of the security deposit of the petitioner vide
communication dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) and directions
to refund the entire security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- deposited on
2026:HHC:8485
20.02.2024 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Further
direction was sought with regard to Condition No. 14 of the
.
detailed terms and conditions which mandates that automatic
and total forfeiture is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative;
and direction was sought to decide the representation dated
26.11.2025 by passing a reasoned speaking order.
of
4. A perusal of the order dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure
P-3), sought to be impugned, would go on to show that the
rt
security amount of Rs. 40,000/- was forfeited on account of the
fact that on 15.05.2024, the petitioner had been asked to take
over possession of the canteen allotted to him at bus stand Amb
within 7 days otherwise the amount would be forfeited in view of
the terms and conditions No. 14.
5. The perusal of the terms and conditions would go on
to show that the successful bidder had to execute the agreement
within 10 days from the date of the approval accorded by the
Chief Executive Officer, failing which the security deposit shall be
forfeited. The said clause reads as under:-
"The successful bidder shall have to executive agreement
within a period of tend days from the date of approval
accorded by the Chief Executive Officer failing which the
security deposit shall be forfeited. The commencement of
the agreement executed between HPCT&BSM&DA and
licensee shall be attested by the appropriate authority of
the area vi. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Executive
Magistrate etc. The expenses of drafting, stamping and
2026:HHC:8485
Execution of rent agreement shall be borne by the
licensee. The possession of shop/canteen shall be named
over to the successful bidder after execution of
.
agreement and completion of all codal formalities
explained in this tender document."
6. Apparently, the petitioner had offered a rate of
Rs.9500/- per month for the said tender and it had been duly
of
accepted being highest bidder and in pursuance of the same, he
was required to take over the possession and run the canteen at
the bus stand Amb but apparently on the said date petitioner
rt
filed a vague application for refund of the security deposit of Rs.
40,000/-
7. An argument is now sought to be raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unwell
and could not take over the possession of the canteen. There is
nothing on record as such to show that any request was made
for extension of time to the authorities which could have been
considered.
8. The petitioner being satisfied, had never as such
represented against the said forfeiture and it was only at a
belated stage after period of almost 1 ½ years on 26.11.2025
(Annexure P-4), he sent the representation, now claiming a
refund and challenging the terms and conditions of the contract
as such and thereafter filed the present writ petition on the basis
of the said representation.
2026:HHC:8485
9. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner
is bound by the terms and conditions and having participated in
.
the tender process. On account of not having taken over the
canteen, apparently the respondents were forced to again re-
tender the canteen and therefore, the general public had been
put to inconvenience on account of the act of the petitioner and
of
the respondents to loss by the petitioner, who had offered
highest amount of bid but failed to follow it up to its logical
conclusion.
rt
10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that no case is made out to call upon the respondents to
file reply. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(G. S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Bipin C. Negi)
20 th
March, 2026 Judge
(sanjeev)
