JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The petitioner has filed the writ applica¬tion for quashing the order under Annexure-10 and for a further direction to the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to lift the scrap materials under Annexure-4 in respect of Lot Nos. 7, 11, 22 and 25. 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have been engaged as autho¬rised agents for sale of scrap materials belonging to opposite parties 3 and 4. Pursuant to Tender Call Notice issued by oppo¬site parties 1 and 2, the petitioner had given offer. At the time of making the offer the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit. Subsequently, in respect of the items indicated in the writ application, the petitioner was permitted to lift the scrap materials subject to payment of the amount as indicated in the agreement. On account of the failure of the petitioner to pay the money, the said arrangement was scrapped and a fresh contract was executed in favour of some other persons. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order under Annexure-10 whereunder the contract in his favour had been terminated. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential orders under Annexures-11 and 13 and has sought for a direction to permit him to lift the materials on payment of the amount. The petitioner has also submitted in course of argument that the Earnest Money Deposit should not be forfeited. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since there was some difficulty in making the payment in advance, various correspondences had been made between the peti¬tioner and opposite parties 1 and 2, but to no avail and ultimate¬ly the petitioner had deposited the entire amount by way of cheques and as such, the opposite parties should have permitted the petitioner to lift the materials. In the counter affidavit it has been indicated that the petitioner did not make the deposit within the stipulated period and in view of such default in making the payment, the agreement between the petitioner and opposite parties had been set at naught and fresh arrangement had been made with other persons. It has been further submitted that in the absence of the other persons in whose favour fresh con¬tracts had been executed, the prayer of the petitioner for allow¬ing him to lift the materials cannot be accepted. 4. It has been further submitted that in the absence of the other persons in whose favour fresh con¬tracts had been executed, the prayer of the petitioner for allow¬ing him to lift the materials cannot be accepted. 4. The aforesaid submission on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 as well as opposite parties 3 and 4 is acceptable. Since third parties who have entered into new arrangement with opposite parties 1 to 4 have not been impleaded, any order to permit the petitioner to lift the materials would adversely affect their right and as such, the main prayer in the writ application cannot be accepted in the absence of such persons. 5. The alternative prayer which was made in accordance of hearing relates to forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 10,00/- which had been given as Earnest Money Deposit. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the terms of the agreement, the said Earnest Money Deposit automatically became part of the security deposit and as such could not have been forfeited in full without indicating the extent of loss sustained by the opposite parties on account of the fresh contracts. This submis¬sion, though attractive on the face of it, is not acceptable. In the present case, as per the agreement, the right of the peti¬tioner to lift the materials would have arisen only after deposit of the entire amount as stipulated. Therefore, the amount which was deposited initially as Earnest Money Deposit still continued in the same character and did not assume the character of a security deposit. Moreover, it has been indicated in the counter affidavit that fresh notices had to be published for which ex¬penditure had been incurred and the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to decide about the extent of damage suffered by the opposite parties on account of the default on the part of the petitioner in performing his part of the contract. The peti¬tioner is seeking to enforce a contractual right and the question of the extent of damage suffered by the opposite parties cannot be appropriately decided in a certiorari proceeding under Arti¬cles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, as right¬ly pointed out, re-advertisement had to be made for which expend¬iture had to be incurred. In the aforesaid background, forfei¬ture of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be characterised as arbi¬trary or unreasonable. 6. Moreover, as right¬ly pointed out, re-advertisement had to be made for which expend¬iture had to be incurred. In the aforesaid background, forfei¬ture of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be characterised as arbi¬trary or unreasonable. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ application, which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.