Judgment 1. The petitioners filed their tender for purchase of D category rice from the Food Corporation of India, acceptance whereof was communicated by Communication No. 37 of 2006. As per the terms of the tender, the petitioners were required to deposit 5% of the tendered amount within one week and the balance 15% within fifteen days of the acceptance which was extendable on payment of interest by another fifteen days. The period for lifting was co-terminus with payment but extendable by another thirty days on payment of storage charges. Thus, it would be seen that period for payment was thirty days maximum and period for lifting was maximum sixty days. Petitioner failed to comply with either of the two conditions. As such, the contract with the petitioner was rescinded. His security forfeited and the matter retendered finalization of which has been stayed by this Court. 2. Petitioners submit that it cannot be disputed that the petitioners were ready and willing to comply with the conditions but due to extraordinary personal reasons, he could not do so. His own younger brother became critically ill and ultimately died inspite of best treatment on the 30.08.2006. They submit that this extraordinary situation obliged them to give preference to look after and arrange for treatment of their younger brother over timely compliance of the contractual obligations. This aspect of the matter the authorities did not consider. The petitioners submit that apart from the aforesaid the respondent-authority who took the final decision was not correctly posted with the facts and, as such, the decision was taken which decison stands vitiated. Shri Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Food Corporation of India submits that the detailed manner in which facts are pleaded before this Court were never brought to the notice of the authorities. Facts having not been brought to the notice of the authorities, it cannot be expected that the authorities should decide the issue based on those facts. The decision is, thus, not vitiated in law. 3. Having considered the matter, in my view, it is an admitted position that the petitioners defaulted in the time schedule both with regard to payment and with regard to lifting. The decision is, thus, not vitiated in law. 3. Having considered the matter, in my view, it is an admitted position that the petitioners defaulted in the time schedule both with regard to payment and with regard to lifting. This is sufficient for the authorities to terminate the contract and forfeit the security but as Food Corporation of India is a State instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that even in contractual matters, it must act fairly and reasonably. If the fact of terminal illness of petitioners younger brother is correct then the respondents must take a humane approach to the problem. It is not that termination of the contract for breach of any condition or stipulation is automatic and peremptory. It is a matter of discretion. It is open to the authorities to consider the grounds for delay and take a decision accordingly. In other words, I may say that merely because a default has been committed, it does not necessarily follow that the contract must be rescinded with no option whatsoever to condone the delay and continue therewith. Under the contract no such peremptory condtion or stipulation is shown. Thus, in my view, if petitioners are able to establish the special circumstances then they have to be dealt in a manner different. This is where discretion comes in. Wherever a discretionary power is conferred on any authority, the discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. Reasonable exercise of discretion would be an exercise after taking into consideration all relevant factors and an exercise which would be expected of a reasonable man acting in reasonable manner. Here, the respondents have not taken note of the difficulty of the petitioners. May be this is because of petitioners failure to bring on record before them those facts. If those facts are correct then the authorities would consider the matter once again in exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction and take a decision appropriate to the case with regard to forfeiture of the earnest money. So far as retender is concerned, as people have already made offers, petitioners can also make an offer and participate in the same. If ultimately the authorities decide that by merely rescinding the contract and not forfeiting security they could readvertise/retender and then permit petitioner and/or others to lift the stocks without loss to the Corporation. So far as retender is concerned, as people have already made offers, petitioners can also make an offer and participate in the same. If ultimately the authorities decide that by merely rescinding the contract and not forfeiting security they could readvertise/retender and then permit petitioner and/or others to lift the stocks without loss to the Corporation. Such an exercise would be non-discriminatory and would not prejudice any person. I, accordingly, direct the same. 4. This application, with the above observation and direction is, accordingly, disposed of. 5. Let a copy of this order be given to Shri Tekriwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Food Corporation of India.