JUDGMENT A.K. Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the allotment of fishery rights in favour of the appellant vide order dated 07.06.2010. The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited issued NTT for giving fishery rights for seven years. The bid of the writ petitioner was found to be the highest but the same was rejected on the ground that the earnest money was deposited by way of Bank draft instead of call deposit Fishery rights were given in favour of the appellant who was next higher bidder and the respondent in the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by submitting that his bid was wrongly rejected as defective as deposit in the form of Bank draft should have been treated to be valid and at per with the call deposit. The demand draft enabled the Corporation to have it encashed whenever it liked. 2. The writ petition was opposed by submitting that the tender conditions were to be strictly followed and, therefore, rejection of bid of the petitioner was justified. 3. After due consideration, learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the writ petitioner as follows: 8. As noticed above, the petitioner offered the highest amount of Rs. 1,71,777/- per year as against the offer of respondent No. 3, which was Rs. 1,65,000/- per year in respect of the fishery in question. The offer of other tenderers were less than the amount offered by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The petitioner's tender paper was found to be defective on the ground that the earnest money was not deposited in the form of call deposit but was deposited in the form of demand draft from a nationalized bank though his offer was higher than the offer of the respondent No. 3. According to the respondents since there is a condition to make such deposit in the form of call deposit, the same has to be complied with. 9. The notice inviting tender dated 06.04.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation provides for purchasing the prescribed form, in which the tender is to be submitted, along with detailed terms and conditions of the tender on payment of Rs. 100/-. 9. The notice inviting tender dated 06.04.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation provides for purchasing the prescribed form, in which the tender is to be submitted, along with detailed terms and conditions of the tender on payment of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 accordingly purchased the form along with the detailed terms and conditions of the tender from the respondent Corporation and submitted their bids. In the detailed terms and conditions it has been stipulated that the offer by the tenderer is to be made in the form supplied by the Corporation and it should be accompanied by the documents/information mentioned in clause 4 of the terms and conditions. One of the requirements in clause 4 is that the tenderer has to furnish the earnest money to the tune of 15% of the minimum value fixed by the Corporation for the first year. There is no stipulation relating to the form in which such earnest money is to be deposited like the call deposit, bank draft or bankers cheque. In clause 5 of such detailed terms and conditions of the tender, the said position has been reiterated requiring the tenderer to furnish the earnest money to the tune of 15% of the minimum value fixed by the Corporation for the first year with further stipulation that the unsuccessful bidder would be refunded the earnest money deposit and in case of the successful bidder the same would be refunded subject to fulfillment of the conditions of settlement. There is also a stipulation for forfeiture of the earnest money in the eventualities stipulated in clause 5.4 of the detailed terms and conditions. In the prescribed form in which the tenderer is to submit his offer, there is a mention in clause 4(ka) to furnish the call deposit number and date as well as the name of the bank issuing such call deposit. In the prescribed form there is also no indication that the earnest money, only in the form of call deposit, would be accepted and not otherwise. 10. In the prescribed form there is also no indication that the earnest money, only in the form of call deposit, would be accepted and not otherwise. 10. The purpose of taking the earnest money deposit is to ensure the sincerity of a tenderer to perform the contract in case of awarding the same and in case he is defaulted in carrying out his part of the contract, the said amount is forfeited so that the authority awarding the contract do not suffer any toss for such default of the tenderer. The earnest money is a part of the purchase price and the same is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure on part of the tenderer. The whole purpose of taking the earnest money, as discussed above, being to ensure the faithful completion of the contract and when the record reflects that it is the pursued practice of the respondent Corporation to encash the earnest money deposited by a successful tenderer and to credit the same in Corporation's account, subject to the refund on completion of the contract or forfeiture, as the case may be, there is no significance whether the earnest money deposit is made in the form of call deposit or demand draft, though the period of validity of the bank draft may be l(one) year, as the Corporation is not expected to sit over the matter of settlement of a fishery for a period of 1(one) year from the date of issuance of the tender notice. In the case in hand, the tender notice was issued on 06.04.2010, the order of settlement was made in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 07.06.2010 and the earnest money deposited by the successful bidder, namely, the respondent No. 3 was encashed and credited to the account of the respondent Corporation on 03.07.2010 i.e. within 3(three) months from the date of issuance of the tender notice and 1(one) month from the date of issuance of the order of settlement. Therefore, the respondent Corporation would not have been put to any disadvantageous position had the earnest money furnished by the petitioner, who was the highest bidder, in the form of bank demand draft, been accepted, as the same also could have been encashed and deposited in the Corporation's account within the time limit attached to such bank draft, as normally done by the Corporation in the matter of settlement The Corporation in that case would not have suffer any loss of revenue as the petitioner's otter was higher than the offer of the respondent No. 3. 11. It is no doubt true that if the authority stipulates any condition in the NIT, those are required to be fulfilled and it cannot deviate from such conditions unless of course those are essential conditions of eligibility and not merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by such condition. In case any condition stipulated in the NIT is merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by such condition, it is open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict compliance of the condition in appropriate cases, as opined by the Apex Court in G.J. Fernandez (supra) [ (1990) 2 SCC 488 ] and Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) [ (1991) 3 SCC 273 ]. 12. In the case in hand, as discussed above, there is no stipulation in the detailed terms and conditions of the NIT supplied to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 3 and other bidders that the earnest money has to be deposited only in the form of call deposit and not in any other form. The prescribed form supplied by the respondent Corporation, in which the offer has to be submitted by the tenderer, also does not stipulate that such earnest money has to be furnished in the form of the call deposit though it requires furnishing certain information relating to the call deposit. Such information as sought for in the form cannot be treated as terms and conditions of the NIT, having not stipulated so in the detailed terms and conditions supplied to the tenderers, more so, when mere is no stipulation that non-furnishing of the earnest money in the form of call deposit entails disqualification. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant and the Corporation submitted that the tender conditions could not be deviated and it was for the Corporation to decide whether the earnest money deposit was required to be in the form of call deposit or by Bank draft. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant had made substantial investment and at this stage the contract was not liable to be interfered with. 5. After due consideration, we do not find any merit in this appeal. As rightly held by learned Single Judge, there was no stipulation in the NIT about the furnishing of earnest money in the form of call deposit. Thus, there was no violation of any tender condition in deposit being made by way of Bank draft. Moreover, the deposit by way of Bank draft does not cause any prejudice to the Corporation and thus form of deposit could not be a ground to reject the highest bid. Thus, learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the contract granted to the appellant ignoring the claim of the writ petitioner. As regards investment alleged to have been made, it is pointed out by the writ petitioner that the appellant has already taken substantial benefits from the fishing rights in the last two years. In view of illegality mentioned above, it is not necessary to go into the question. We do not find that any hardship is caused to the appellant. In any case this disputed question of fact can be better gone into in any appropriate forum if and when such question is agitated. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.