JUDGMENT This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated January 20, 2010 whereby the learned single judge of this court has dismissed the writ petition (C.W.P. No. 585 of 2010) filed by the petitioner in relation to a contractual matter. The relevant facts and background aspects of the matter could be noticed thus : In response to the notice inviting tenders (NIT) dated August 19, 2009 (annexure 1), as issued by the respondents for collection of tax on the named casual commodities, the petitioner - appellant gave his bid for a sum of Rs. 91,11,111 in relation to Pachpadra Group in Barmer Circle. The offer made by the appellant being the highest, the respondents proceeded to award the contract to the appellant by the order dated September 10, 2009 (annexure 2). The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,95,000 while making the offer and deposited further an amount of Rs. 5,64,259 on September 17, 2009 (annexure 3). Thereafter, the notification dated October 9, 2009 came to be issued by respondent No. 2 notifying the award of contract and authorising the appellant to establish the requisite check-posts. After the contract had been finalised in its favour, the appellant proceeded to make a representation to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Banner on October 14, 2009 seeking reduction of the rate of contract with the submissions that the amount was offered under mistake and with reference to the old rates of tax whereas the relevant rates had been reduced from 12 per cent to four per cent in the month of July 2009. The appellant submitted that the contractual amount may be reduced to 1/3rd and else, the deposited amount may be returned to it. The respondents proceeded to reject the representation on October 15, 2009 (annexure 5) pointing out that the NIT had been issued only with reference to the amended rates of tax. The appellant submitted another representation that too was rejected by respondent No. 2. Ultimately, for the appellant failing to execute the agreement, notice was issued by the respondents on October 27, 2009 (annexure 8) to show cause as to why the deposited amount be not forfeited. The appellant submitted another representation that too was rejected by respondent No. 2. Ultimately, for the appellant failing to execute the agreement, notice was issued by the respondents on October 27, 2009 (annexure 8) to show cause as to why the deposited amount be not forfeited. The appellant submitted by the communication dated November 9, 2009 (annexure 9) that they were not aware about the reduced rate of tax; and that looking to the reduced rates, they were not in a position to sign the contract, the same being not viable. The appellant, however, came out with a suggestion that if the contract was sought to be awarded to the second highest bidder who had offered an amount of Rs. 47,00,000 then, the same may be awarded to the appellant at 10 per cent above such second highest rate. The representation so made was rejected by the respondents on November 13, 2009 (annexure 10) finding it to be against the rules. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the writ petition in the court. The learned single judge considered the writ petition in the impugned order dated January 20, 2010 and found no case for interference with the observations that the tax slab had been reduced by the notification dated July 8, 2009, i.e., more than a month before issuance of the NIT; and appellant's own fault of not taking note of the prevalent rates cannot be taken as a ground in its favour. The learned single judge also referred to the rather incongruous and uncertain submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding the error on the part of the respondents in not accepting its alternative offer of 10 per cent more than the second highest bider; and observed that though no document had been produced but as per the appellant's averments, the State has awarded the contract for the same area now for a sum of Rs. 52,00,000 and, thus, even the bid quoted by the appellant later was less than the amount on which the contract has been awarded. The learned single judge also observed that for the default, the appellant would be liable for forfeiture of the amount and with such forfeited amount, the total sum received by the Government would be more than Rs. 52,00,000. The learned single judge also observed that for the default, the appellant would be liable for forfeiture of the amount and with such forfeited amount, the total sum received by the Government would be more than Rs. 52,00,000. It has been suggested before us that the appellant was misled by the respondents to believe and assume certain facts without proper disclosure of all the relevant facts; and the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. It is also submitted that the respondents are not entitled to forfeit the amount deposited by the appellant. The submissions remain baseless and untenable. The appellant had made the offer with eyes open and the suggestion as subsequently sought to be made about want of disclosure of facts or anything misleading remains hollow and baseless. It is noticed that in the NIT itself, the department had fixed the reserve price in relation to the contract in question at Rs. 39,00,000. The notification in relation to tax slab was issued as back as on July 8, 2009 whereas the NIT was issued on August 19, 2009 and the bids were opened as late as on September 10, 2009. The late attempt on the part of the petitioner - appellant to wriggle out of the contract after finding it not viable could not have been countenanced; and the Department cannot be faulted in rejecting the baseless representations made by the appellant. The suggestions about loss to the public exchequer are also baseless, apart from being self-defeating. There was no reason or basis wherefor the department would have accepted the so-called alternative offer of the petitioner while attempting at wriggling out, i.e., of 10 per cent above the offer of the second highest bidder. The learned single judge has rightly observed that as a consequence of default, when the appellant would be liable for forfeiture of the deposited amount, the total sum received by the Government would be more than Rs. 52,00,000. This is apart from other rights of the respondents and the corresponding liabilities of the appellant for its backing out of the concluded contract. There was absolutely nothing for the writ court to intervene at the instance of the appellant; and the learned single judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.