IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13975 OF 2007 AMIT RAJ, SON OF RAMJIWAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – RASULPUR JILANI, CHAKKAR ROAD, P. S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR ................................ PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MOTIHARI, FOREST DIVISION EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 4. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 5. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 6. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER – CUM – CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DISTRICT BOARD, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ................................ RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 08.03.2010 Petitioner was the highest bidder for certain dry Mahogany trees and some Shisham trees belonging to the district Board of East Champaran at Motihari. The auction in question is of Lot No. 4 of 2005-06. After the bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent, he failed to deposit the amount within the time frame, fixed therein. He made a request to the Divisional Forest Officer, Motihari for an extension of one month time on 14.08.2007. There was even a favourable recommendation in his favour by the Vice-Chairman of the Zila Parishad to extend the time. The Divisional Forest Officer forwarded the request to the Executive Officer on 23.08.2007 and finally the impugned order dated 27.09.2007 came to be passed against the petitioner, which is Annexure – 4 to the writ application and is under challenge. By virtue of this Order the security money of the 2 petitioner stands forfeited. He terms such a decision to be arbitrary. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner had been given a real long rope in this regard. After the bid of petitioner was accepted, for more then a year he did not deposit the requisite amount. He had been given indulgence longer then necessary. Even according to his own request, the one month time expired and even then he failed to deposit the amount. The request of the petitioner in terms of Annexure – 2 is dated 14th of August, 2007 and the forfeiture order has come to be passed on 27.09.2007. The explanation offered by the petitioner that he was awaiting a communication from the respondents on his request is not believable in absence of any material. No action has been shown to have been taken as desire had been expressed to deposit the money after expiry of a month which he had prayed. The petitioner did not want to pay the money for which he was the highest and successful bidder. There is nothing arbitrary about Annexure – 4. Annexure – 4 has come to be passed because of the conduct of the petitioner and his failure to perform and not because of any misgivings and irrationality of conduct on behalf of the respondents. The writ has no merit and is dismissed. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) 3