C.M.No.18891 of 2007 in C.W.P.No.14663 of 2007 Present: Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Sandeep Khunger,Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No. 5. *** C.M.No.18891 of 2007 C.M. allowed. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.5 is taken on record. C.W.P.No.14663 of 2007 In the impugned order, the reasons given for not refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner herein is that the highest bidder did not deposit any amount as per terms of the auction and thus his earnest money was forfeited by the Municipal Council, whereas the earnest money of Rs.10.00 lacs deposited by the second party was not refunded, because the Municipal Council had to pay the salaries of the staff, bills of the electricity board and payments towards the development and other works. We have failed to understand how can the money of second highest bidder like the petitioner can be withheld by the Municipal Council for paying the dues of the staff, bills of the electricity board and payments towards the development and other works? The detention of the money of the petitioner was without any sanction or legal authority. At this stage, learned counsel for the Municipal Council has drawn our attention to Clause 16 of the terms and conditions for sale of plot which lays down that the earnest money of second party for the purchase of 25 acres of land shall not be refunded till the time 1/4th of the amount is deposited by the 1st party with the Municipal Council. To our mind, this clause is totally arbitrary, irrational and unsustainable. C.W.P.No.14663 of 2007(O&M) -2- Let us assume a case, where a party who is the highest bidder for the purchase of land but does not deposit the requisite amount and the second party who has deposited the earnest amount, pursuant to this clause, will never get back the amount deposited by him and the first party will never come to deposit the earnest amount. What is the fault of the second party whose amount is not being released for no fault of his. This clause least to say is a clause, which is totally arbitrary and irrational. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to Municipal Council to return the amount of 10 lacs deposited by the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of deposit i.e. 12.09.2006, within a period of four weeks. In case the amount is not refunded to the petitioner within four weeks, the Municipal council shall pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit. We further direct that such a clause, which was inserted in the notice issued by the Municipal Council for inviting bids for allotment of plot ought not to be inserted in any tender hereinafter issued because such a clause cannot stand the scrutiny of law and in case there is necessity of inserting such a clause atleast some legal opinion be taken by the Municipal Council. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE January 22, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) nt JUDGE