JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, J. The writ petitioners seek to resile from an offer on the ground that there is no formal acceptance thereof by the respondents and that it is open to the petitioners to seek refund of the earnest deposit. 2. The customs authorities conducted an e-auction for sale of 1656 wheel sets with shaft of Romanian origin weighing about 2398 MT. The goods were offered on as-is-where-is basis and the successful bidders were required to pay the earnest money of 10 per cent of the bid value within seven days of the declaration of the result of the auction. The auction was open to bidders registered with the customs as access to the auction website was only by keying in the allotted user ID and password. The duration of the process of auction was to be notified on the website. 3. The first petitioner put in a bid and complains that despite the first petitioner being declared as the highest bidder, no formal approval was issued by the respondents as was required to be done under the conditions of the auction. The parties refer to the following relevant terms of the e-auction notice: "(xiv) Thereafter, the Department will examine the bidding amounts and in the case of the bids accepted, the bidders will receive communication bye-mail as well as by post about acceptance of their bidding. (xv) Within 7 days of the receipt of the letter indicating acceptance of the bid by the Department or by the concerned CFS (in the case of un-cleared cargo), the bidders will be expected to pay the 10% EMD or the full bid amount according to their preference. (xvi) In case only EMD is paid, delivery of goods will be made only after the full amount is paid within the time limit specified in the conditions of sale. (xvii) If the full amount is paid, a delivery order will be issued to the bidder to receive the goods. However, the delivery of goods will be subject to fulfillment of any regulations under Customs Act or any other act in force like Plant Quarantine, Port Health Officer, etc. and he should take delivery within the stipulated time. (xviii) In case a bidder fails to pay EMD after his bid has been accepted, he will be black-listed and the deposit amount of Rs.4900/- will be forfeited by the Department. and he should take delivery within the stipulated time. (xviii) In case a bidder fails to pay EMD after his bid has been accepted, he will be black-listed and the deposit amount of Rs.4900/- will be forfeited by the Department. He will be re-registered only if he compensates the Department for the loss suffered by the Department. In case the goods are sold subsequently at a lower price, the registration will be considered on payment of the differential between the bid amount made by the debarred bidder and the new bidder with interest as calculated by the Department." 4. In addition to the above conditions the auction was governed by the terms of the general conditions of sale which include the customs authority's right to forfeit the earnest deposit upon the full payment not being tendered with the specified time with a right to offer the lot to the second highest bidder. Clause 18 of the general conditions appears to be relevant: "18. If the successful bidder fails to make the payment and/or take delivery of the goods within the time limit prescribed then the SELLER reserves the right to offer the lot to the second highest bidder. The second highest bidder can either accept or refuse the offer and such refusal will not render him a defaulter. When the second highest bidder refuses to accept then the SELLER can auction the undelivered material immediately or in the next auction "without any intimation to the bidder and the EMD deposited if any, or the registration fee deposited by the bidder will be forfeited." 5. The petitioners say that the first petitioner, or the individual who had made the bid on behalf of the first petitioner was declared as the highest bidder by a communication of September 26, 2008 and was required to pay 10 per cent of the bid amount by way of earnest deposit within seven days. The petitioners say that no communication, either bye-mail or by post, was made informing the first petitioner of the confirmation/ approval of the bid. The petitioners rely on the following two clauses of the first page of the e-auction notice: "2. The successful bidders should pay the EMD @ 10% of the bid value within 7 days after declaration of results. 3. The petitioners rely on the following two clauses of the first page of the e-auction notice: "2. The successful bidders should pay the EMD @ 10% of the bid value within 7 days after declaration of results. 3. The bidder shall pay the balance of the bid amount between 10.00 Hrs and 18.00 Hrs on working days as per the chart given below: f. Rs.1 Crore and above- within 45 days from the date of confirmation/ approval. " 6. The petitioners insist that only the declaration of the first petitioner, or its authorised agent, as the highest bidder was made but the liability to make payment of the balance amount after depositing the earnest money would arise only after the receipt of a communication of confirmation/ approval of the offer. Such second communication, according to the petitioners, had never been issued by the respondent authorities, and, consequently, there was no obligation on the petitioners' part to tender the balance payment. 7. The petitioners rely on a communication of October 3, 2008 requesting the respondent authorities to issue a delivery order and invoice in the name of the first petitioner and on subsequent writings of October 6, 2008, November 10, 2008, November 24, 2008 and February 6, 2009 expressing their readiness and willingness to make the payment upon the issuance of the delivery order. The petitioners say that upon the respondents having failed to issue either the communication of confirmation/approval of the bid or the delivery order in respect of the goods, the petitioners no longer remain obliged to honour their offer and are entitled to seek refund of the earnest deposit. The petitioners assert that the so-called letter of acceptance that the respondents issued was merely a declaration of the result of the auction. The underlying theme of the petitioner's case is that there has been no firm acceptance of the petitioner's bid for the parties to have been bound by a contract and its attendant consequences. 8. The customs authorities refer to the letter of acceptance of September 26, 2008 and the petitioners' confirmation of the acceptance of October 3, 2008. The underlying theme of the petitioner's case is that there has been no firm acceptance of the petitioner's bid for the parties to have been bound by a contract and its attendant consequences. 8. The customs authorities refer to the letter of acceptance of September 26, 2008 and the petitioners' confirmation of the acceptance of October 3, 2008. They say that not only did the letter of acceptance declare the first petitioner, or its authorised agent, as the highest bidder but it indicated the acceptance of the bid and demanded payment of the earnest deposit within seven days and of the remaining amount within 45 days from "the date of such communication. The respondents refer to the petitioners' contemporaneous understanding of the position as would be evident from the petitioners' acknowledgement of the letter of acceptance by their communication of October 3, 2008. These two writings need to be seen: Communication dated September 26, 2008 "Sub: Acceptance of your bid offered in e-auction No. 04/08-09 Conducted on 22.09.2008 reg. This is to inform you that the following bid offered by has/have been accepted by the department: S1. No.1 Lot No. 1045 Goods: Wheel Sets Bid Offered: Rs. 6,75,00,000/- You are, therefore, required to pay the EMD (10% of the bid amount) within 7 days after declaration of the result and remaining amount within 45 days from the date of confirmation/approval. Failure to do so would make you liable to actions as per the conditions of the sale." Communication dated October 3, 2008 "Sub: Sale bye-auction No. 04/08-09 Lot No. 1045 Please note that I am in receipt of your acceptance letter dated 26.09.08 regarding confirmation of the above-mentioned lot of Wheel Sets. I have purchased the lot on behalf of M/s. Steel Union Pvt. Ltd. 40, Strand Road, Room No.5, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001. I request you to issue Delivery Order & Invoice etc. in the name of the same. Thanking you." 9. The respondents submit that the contract had been concluded and there was no doubt that the petitioners harboured in that regard. There is a suggestion that the failing price of the metal in the international market may have prompted the petitioners to invent a ground to wriggle out of the bargain. 10. Thanking you." 9. The respondents submit that the contract had been concluded and there was no doubt that the petitioners harboured in that regard. There is a suggestion that the failing price of the metal in the international market may have prompted the petitioners to invent a ground to wriggle out of the bargain. 10. Clauses (2) and (3) of the initial page of the e-auction notice suggest that there would be a declaration of the result of the auction and that the successful bidder would be communicated the confirmation or approval of the bid. Strictly speaking, clause (2) did not require the declaration of the result of the auction to be communicated to the successful bidder but clause (3) per force implied that the confirmation or approval of the bid was to be communicated. There is nothing in the e-auction terms or the general conditions that would permit the petitioners to split hair and suggest that there were two sets of notices that were required to be issued by the customs authorities to the successful bidder before the obligation of the bidder to honour its commitment could arise or the bidder could be bound by his offer. 11. The subsequent clauses of the auction process that have been set out above refer to bidders being communicated bye-mail as well as by post of the acceptance of their bids. But in the subsequent clauses there is no reference to any further communication of confirmation or approval of the bid. Clause (xv) provides for the issuance of a letter indicating acceptance of the bid and mandates the accepted bidder to pay 10 per cent by way of earnest or the full bid amount according to the bidder's preference. Clause (xvi) provides that delivery of the goods would be made only after the full amount is paid within the time limit specified in the conditions of sale. Clause (xvii) stipulates that a delivery order would be issued to the bidder to enable him to receive the goods only upon the full amount being paid. Going strictly by the terms governing the auction, the contract was concluded upon the bidder being intimated of the acceptance of the bid and the delivery of the goods could be obtained upon payment of the full amount. 12. Going strictly by the terms governing the auction, the contract was concluded upon the bidder being intimated of the acceptance of the bid and the delivery of the goods could be obtained upon payment of the full amount. 12. The letter of acceptance required the petitioners to put in the earnest money within seven days from the date of such letter and reminded the petitioners that the balance sum was to be paid "within 45 days from the date of confirmation/approval." If the petitioners arc so fixed on clause 3(f) of the conditions Oil the opening• page of the e-auction notice, the communication of September 26, 2008 plainly indicated that the bid had been confirmed or approved. The petitioners' immediate comprehension of the position is reflected in the letter of October 3, 2008 where the first petitioner's agent referred to the letter of acceptance as the confirmation of the bid and went on to write that such agent had "purchased" the lot. In the letter dated October 6, 2008 the petitioners emphasised that the sale had "been confirmed." 13. The first petitioner or its agent made an offer. The customs authorities accepted such offer. The acceptance was communicated to the first petitioner or its authorised agent. The first petitioner or its authorised agent acknowledged receipt of the communication of acceptance. The earnest money was deposited on the understanding of the petitioners that the offer had been accepted. All that was left to be done was for the petitioners to put in the balance money, obtain the delivery order and remove the goods. There is little scope to perceive that the petitioners were unaware of their obligation. There is hardly any room for grievance. 14. Though the respondents say that they have neither called upon the second highest bidder to accept the goods at the price offered by such bidder nor taken any steps to call a fresh auction, the petitioners are undeserving of even a liberty being granted to seek extension of the time to make the balance payment and receive the goods. There is simply no case that the petitioner has been able to make out. 15. It is distressing that such an unworthy cause was not stopped at any level of screening before it reached Court. There is simply no case that the petitioner has been able to make out. 15. It is distressing that such an unworthy cause was not stopped at any level of screening before it reached Court. The unabashed attempt to slip out of a binding arrangement and the complete lack of diffidence reveal either an unf1attering assessment of the judicial process or the more fashionable psyche of making a matter sub-judice to ward off an undeniable claim. Speculating in metals is risky business. The exhilaration of money pouring in following a good call made on a given day is chillingly dampened in the chagrin of the payout that may have to be made on the next. As much as there may be profit in the speculation business in the market, speculation on a bad cause is depressingly expensive. 16. WP No. 122 of 2009 is dismissed with costs assessed at 2000 GMs. 17. Urgent certified photostat copies or this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Appeal dismissed.