Judgment :- (Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to refund the earnest money deposit submitted in tender no.C2/1471/06T dated 14.4.2006.) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the relief of issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to refund the earnest money deposit submitted in Tender No. C2/1471/06T dated 14.4.2006. 2. The facts of the case proceed as follows: The petitioner is one of the meanderers for allotment of plots in the Jawahar Dock East ranging from 4230 sq.mts. to 7033.5 sq.mtrs. for a period of ten months and fifteen days for storage and export of iron ore lumps. As per the Tender Notification of the respondent Port Trust dated 14.4.2006, the petitioner deposited a sum or Rs.35 lakhs as earnest money deposit. Further, as per the Tender Conditions, the tenders had to be opened on 28.4.2006 at 15.00 Hours in the new Conference Hall, Ground Floor of the Centenary Building, Chennai Port Trust in the presence of the tenderers. While that being so, on that day, the respondent is not able to proceed further in respect of the tenders, as the respondents received a copy of the stay order issued by this order in W.P.M.P. No. 14532 of 2006 in W.P. No. 12939 of 2006. Admittedly the tenders are not opened as on date. As the situation is protracting without any end, the petitioner has sought for refund of the tender amount, which has been negatived by the respondents on the ground that as per Clause 4 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Notification, the earnest money deposit cannot be refunded and it has to be forfeited. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the prayer as stated above. 3. The respondents filed counter contending that it is not the fault on the part of the respondents to proceed further. But is the Court order that has prevented the respondents to proceed further in the tender process. The respondents with all earnestness have taken minimum steps by filing an Application to vacate the stay. As per Clause 4 of the Tender Conditions, the earnest money deposit cannot be refunded. But is the Court order that has prevented the respondents to proceed further in the tender process. The respondents with all earnestness have taken minimum steps by filing an Application to vacate the stay. As per Clause 4 of the Tender Conditions, the earnest money deposit cannot be refunded. On the above said grounds, the respondents seek that the Writ Petition has to be dismissed. 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. 5. It is true that as per Clause 4 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender, the successful bidder to whom the plots are allotted shall make security deposit of Rs.70 lakhs for each plot within seven days from the date of issue of allotment order failing which the allotment order shall automatically be cancelled and that earnest money deposit of Rs.35 lakhs shall be forfeited. As per Clause 12 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Notification, in case of withdrawal from the bidding process after submitting the bid, it shall be considered as a default and on account of that the earnest money deposit of the bidder shall be forfeited and the bidder shall be debarred for allotment of land in Chennai Port Trust for 3 years from the date of default. 6. Therefore, as seen from the above Clause 12, the bidder would be rendered liable for forfeiture of the earnest money deposit only on the withdrawal from the bidding process after submitting the bid in the natural course. Here is a case that the petitioner has offered the bid and filed the tender on 28.4.2006. On the same day, the bidding process has been stalled at the instance of the third party, who obtained a stay order from this Court. So, the bidding process has not been moved any little further from 28.4.2006 as on date. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent called upon the earlier allottees for the year 2005-2006 to inform their readiness to clear the shipments if the allotment is made in their favour. A letter dated 27.7.2006 addressed by the Chennai Port Trust to seven persons have been produced before this Court. So, it is a fact that the tender process as per the Tender Notification has not been moved except receiving the tender applications. A letter dated 27.7.2006 addressed by the Chennai Port Trust to seven persons have been produced before this Court. So, it is a fact that the tender process as per the Tender Notification has not been moved except receiving the tender applications. Now that in view of the stay order granted in the above said Writ Petition and the inaction on the part of the respondents in not taking any steps to get the stay vacated and thereby period of nearly four months have been lapsed, the petitioner thought it fit it is not worthwhile to proceed further in the bidding process and wanted to go back from the process, for which action, Clause 12 cannot be put against the petitioner. Clause 12 can only be regarded as one of the conditions in the natural course without any external happenings like the granting of interim order from this Court or any other Court for that matter. This Court has construed that Clause 12 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The request of the petitioner cannot be denied by the respondent. 7. In the light of the discussion made above, the Writ Petition can be allowed and the same is allowed as prayed for and the amount of earnest money deposit shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.