THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.3775 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in Roc.No.3756/2004/A12, dated 24.01.2005, whereby and whereunder the EMD amount of Rs.6,60,305/- was sought to be forfeited purportedly under sub-rule (3) of Rule 9H of G.O.Ms.No.1, I & C (M1) Department, dated 01.01.2001, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner participated in the auction held for leasing out the sand quarrying rights in Reach No.12 of Korumilli Village, East Godavari District on 21.10.2000. Since he was declared as highest bidder, an agreement was entered into and the petitioner started quarrying operations w.e.f., 01.04.2001. However, on 03.05.2001, the petitioner was asked to stop quarrying operations under the instructions of the Joint Collector, East Godavari District and pursuant to the same, the petitioner stopped the quarrying operations. But, neither his EMD was returned nor he was permitted to carry on the quarry operations in respect of Reach No.12 of Korumilli Village, East Godavari District. While that being so, pursuant to the fresh notification, dated 02.10.2004, issued by the respondents, the petitioner participated in the auction for leasing out the sand quarrying rights for Reach Nos.21, 36, 39, 43 and 44 of East Godavari District (in Godavari River) and paid an amount of Rs.6,60,305/- towards EMD. However, he was not the successful bidder and the auction was knocked down in favour of third parties, lease agreements were entered into and the term of the agreements is also expired. However, under the impugned order, dated 24.01.2005, the EMD amount paid by the petitioner towards the above Reaches pursuant to the notification, dated 02.10.2004, was sought to be forfeited, purported to be under Clause-9H(3) of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.2001, on the ground that he was found to be a defaulter in respect of the auction held in the year 2000-01. Clause-9H(3) of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.2001, reads as under: “9-H Deposit of the Lease amount and execution of lease agreement:- (1) … (2) … (3) If the successful tenderer or Bidder fails to pay either 25% of the knocked down amount on the next working day or the remaining 25% of the knocked down amount within the specified time as mentioned in the confirmation order or extended period, the amount so far paid by the successful tenderer/bidder shall be forfeited to the Government. The confirming authority is competent to forfeit the deposits to the Government.” The above Clause does not entitle the authorities to forfeit the EMD made in connection with an earlier auction. In the instant case, the forfeiture sought to be made is in respect of the EMD deposited in the year 2004-05 for the purported default made in connection with the earlier auction held in the year 2000-01, which is not the purport of the language imported into the above Clause. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents should not have issued the impugned notice by invoking the said Clause. That apart, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why the EMD deposited in the year 2000-01 shall not be forfeited. Thus, the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, apart from lack of jurisdiction. On these two counts, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the EMD amount of Rs.6,60,305/- to the petitioner forthwith. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action for any lapses committed by the petitioner in connection with the auction held in the year 2000-01 as per law. No order as to costs. _______________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) Date: 27.01.2011 VGB