IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11050 of 2000 SATISH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 27/1/2009 In this writ application the relief prayed for by the petitioner as enumerated in paragraph-1 of this application reads as follows:- “(i) To quash the order dated 8.8.2000 passed by the respondents relating to withholding/forfeiting the 50% of the bid money amount to Rs. 2,48,000/- already deposited by the petitioner and directing the petitioner to deposit the balance bid money of Rs. 2,48,000/- and interest amount Rs. 9920.00 accrued thereon, in term and conditions of auction for extraction and transportation of sand from Tiara Sand site in Kaimur district. (ii) To declare that the petitioner cannot be held legally responsible to pay the bid amount if the petitioner fails to conduct operation of extraction and transportation of Sands from alleged sand site due to laches/negligence on the part of the respondents. (iii) After the aforesaid declaration, the respondent no.2 may be restrained from initiating any proceeding in pursuance of the order dated 8.8.2000 against the petitioner for realization/recovery of the balance bid money along with interest. (iv) To command the respondents to refund the deposited bid money alongwith interest to the petitioner. (v) To command the respondent to pay adequate 2 compensation to the petitioner for loss and hardships caused to him by the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) Any other relief (s) which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. “ Apparently such relief as with regard to enforcing the terms of contract cannot be gone into in a writ jurisdiction. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Radha Krishna Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar’ reported in AIR 1977 SC 1796. That being so, this application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar