ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of Annexure-F and Annexure-F/1, the R.R.C. issued by the Additional Tahsildar (Forest) Tahsil Mauganj (Rewa) on the grounds that the R.R.C. are not based on the foundation of acceptance of the offer, cancellation of the offer non-execution of the agreement or for want of demand notice. 2. The brief facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner purchased certain Tendu Leaves of the groups in an auction. According to him his offer was never accepted by the respondents as the acceptance was never communicated to him. He also submits that as the offer was never accepted he would not fall within the mischief of a 'purchase' and would not be answerable to claim made by the respondents. It is also submitted by them that according Clause-17 (a) if the petitioner fails to execute the agreement then the offer has to be cancelled and after cancellation of the offer a demand notice has to be issued to the petitioner and on non-payment of the amount by the petitioner a R.R.C. could be issued. According to the petitioner neither a cancellation order was passed nor a demand notice was ever issued therefore and in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sumati Chand Vs. State of M.P. 1995 R.N. 46 R.R.C. could not be issued. 3. On the other hand, Smt. Menon, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's bid offer was accepted by the Forest Officer, acceptance letters were issued to him on 18.4.79 under registered post. Strong reliance has been placed on Annexure-R/1 and R/2 to submit that the offer was accepted and the acceptance of the offer was communicated to the petitioner which according to the respondents is clear from Annexure-R/2, the postal receipts. So far as cancellation of the offer/bid is concerned, the return is silent and no document or order cancelling the offer has been annexed with the return. Similarly copy of the demand notice has also not been filed with the return. 4. So far as cancellation of the offer/bid is concerned, the return is silent and no document or order cancelling the offer has been annexed with the return. Similarly copy of the demand notice has also not been filed with the return. 4. Clause 17 (a) provides that the purchaser on being so appointed shall execute an agreement in the form within 15 days of the issue of an order of appointment failing which the appointment shall be liable to be cancelled and on such cancellation, the amount deposited as earnest money shall be forfeited and apart from black listing the purchaser the losses suffered by the Government in re-auction shall be recoverable and if the said losses are not paid within 15 days from the date of issue of notice of demand the same shall be recoverable from the bidder or his surety as arrears of land revenue. 5. Clause 17 (a) clearly provides that on failure of the bidder to execute the agreement within a period of 15 days or within the period extended by the Conservator of Forests, he is bound to execute the agreement and the failure shall lead to cancellation of his appointment. The words studded in Clause 17 (a) do not talk of empty formality. The words clearly mean that in case of the failure on the part of the bidder the appointment can be cancelled. The cancellation has to be in specific words. In the instant case, the State has not chosen to file any cancellation order. In absence of a cancellation order, to support the demand or issuance of the revenue recovery certificate, the act of the State cannot be held to be valid. 6. Even assuming that there was some order of cancellation then too the respondents were required to show to the Court that they had issued a demand notice. The amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue if the purchaser whose appointment has been cancelled, does not make the payment of the loss within 15 days from he date of issue of notice of demand. In the present case the State and its officer have preferred to remain silent about the issuance of the demand notice. In absence of a demand notice later part of clause 17 (a) shall not come into operation. In the present case the State and its officer have preferred to remain silent about the issuance of the demand notice. In absence of a demand notice later part of clause 17 (a) shall not come into operation. In the opinion of this Court in absence of the material documents it cannot be held that the order of appointment was cancelled or a demand notice was ever issued. The R.R.C. issued by the respondent No. 5 would not meet the necessary requirement of law. 7. So for as the refund of the earnest money is concerned this Court is not persuaded by the argument of the counsel for petitioner, the argument for refund was on the foundation that the petitioner was never appointed a purchaser under Clause 16 read with Clause 17. The facts available on record clearly show and prove that the petitioner was appointed a purchaser. When he was appointed a purchaser and did not do anything in furtherance of his own offer the respondents were entitled to forfeit the amount. 8. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after due verification. Petition allowed