HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR —— _-----—. u..— S.B. HON’BLE MR. SATISI-I K. AGNIHOTRL J -m WRIT PETITION No. 2193 of 2001. PETITIONER ' Mahendra Singh aged 32 years, s/o Shn Chhotelal Smgh R/o Vlllage and Post Sonwan Tah Malhar Dlstt Sama Through Attorney Shn N B Smgh R/o Village and P ost Sonvg’Faxis‘Tah, Maihar Dist. Satrm VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chham'sgarh, through Principal Secretary, P.W.D. ~ D.K.Complex, Raipur. 2‘ The Chief Engineer, P,W.D. Near Akashwani, Raipur. 3. The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur Bastamcie.) 4. The Executive Engineer P.W.D. South Bastar Division, Dantewada Bastar(C.G.) 5. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Ministiy of P.W,D. Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 6. The Engineer in Chief, P.W.D. Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal. 7. Ajay Kumar Mishm, aged about 47 years, s/o Shri Not known, R/o Jagdalpur (C.G.) Present: Shn’ Sourab Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No l to 4 None for respondent No 5 to 7 --_..-___,_-— m .r, ,~ v. » . ORDER (Passed on 13a; March 2007) 1. By this petitiom the petitioner has sought for a direction to quash Annexure P11; dated 20.05J999 whereunder the ropresentation of \ the pctitioner wa$ dismissed. \". .f .I’ . Before this, the petitioner has, oled a writ potition being WP. No. 641/1998 before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur seeking for refund of the earneSt money amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/- which was forfeited. The same reiief is sought in this petition as prayerno 7.3 and 7-C. The High Couit of Madhya Pradesh Vida order dateci‘ 24.02.1998 dismissed the petition on the ground that appropriate forum for the petitioner would be to aporoaoh the Engineer-in—Chief who would consider the matter on merit and decide the same. The Engineer-in—Chief vide order dated, 20.05.1999 (Annexare P/l) held that the petitioner was a bidder and his bid wee accepted as per clause 15 of the auction notice, the bidder is under an obligation to i ‘ a. » a t aecept the auction, failing which the earnest money was to be forfeited. The order impugned dated 20.05J999 is passed in accordance with clause 15 ofthe tender notice dated 62.1996. . The contention of the petitioner, that he was not a direct bidder is contrary to the facts; and the same is rejected. 0n perusal of the papers, it is clearly proved that the earnest money wasW . the petitioner as being direct bidder and. thereafwr tlw petitioner declined to perform his part as provided under auction notice. In consequence thereof; the earnest money was forfeited. The same is just, legal and proper. 4. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to‘> be and is dismissed. No order as to costs.