D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 350/1996 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Paramjeet Singh) DATE OF ORDER : 30.07.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. M.R.Singhvi for the appellants. Mr. Anand Purohit for the respondent. By filing this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 9.5.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1635/1987. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge issued writ of mandamus directing the present appellants (respondents in the writ petition) not to take any action to forfeit any amount deposited by the respondent herein towards earnest money deposit. Since the appellants herein wanted to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the present respondent, the respondent herein filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the said action. The appellants herein wanted to forfeit the said security amount on the ground that the respondent has committed breach of contract and they are entitled to forfeit the earnest money. The learned Single Judge found that since the departmental enquiry has been quashed against the present respondent, there was no question of recovering any amount from the respondent. It is pointed out by learned counsel Mr. M.R.Singhvi that this observation is not correct as the departmental enquiry was instituted against the employee and not against the respondent herein. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Anand Purohit, who is appearing for the respondent submitted that his client would like to make representation -2- before the concerned authority for giving relief in the matter of payment of interest as well as for giving some concession in connection with the payment in question. Learned counsel Mr. Anand Purohit submitted that with a view to make such representation, he wants to withdraw the original writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1635/1987. It is submitted that he will prefer such representation within a period of one month from today. We permit the respondent to withdraw the original writ petition with a view to make representation to the concerned authority. If any such representation is made, the concerned authority may decide the same in accordance with law and decision taken on such representation, shall be communicated to the present respondent. Till the decision is taken, no further recovery shall be made from the respondent. Since the original writ petition has been withdrawn, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, this appeal has become infructuous. It is clarified that if the respondent herein has any grievance against the decision on such representation, it will be open for him to take appropriate recourse as per law and as deemed fit. We may however clarify that we have not expressed our opinion on merits. It is for the concerned authority to decide the representation in accordance with law and as deemed fit. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeal stands dismissed as having become infructuous with no order as to costs. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (P.B.MAJMUDAR), J. ms rathore