Judgment Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a successful bidder admittedly in e-auction conducted on behalf of CCL through its agency M. Junction on 25th of March 2013 and in support thereof, he has annexed annexure-1/1 to the writ petition. As per the terms of the e-auction scheme laid down by the CCL, the successful bidder was required to deposit the winning price within a stipulated period through the process of RTGS with a specified Bank Account prescribed in the CCL website. 3. According to the petitioner, he remitted an amount of Rs. 43,69,520/- on 4th of April 2013 in favour of Sales Realization Account of CCL from his account maintained at Allahabad Bank, Circular Road Branch, Ranchi admittedly on the last day for such remittance. However, it later on transpired to the petitioner that because of some technical failure in the RTGS system, the amount was actually credited to the CCL Sales Realization Account on 5th of April 2013. A certificate to that effect was also issued on 5th of April 2013 (Annexure-2) by the Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Circular Road Branch, Ranchi. Statement of account of such transfer is also annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner as annexure-10 showing such credit in the CCL Sales Realization Account on 5th of April 2013. This however, has not been accepted by the respondent CCL as the amount could not be credited in their account on the last date i.e. 4th of April 2013. This led to the forfeiture of the EMD deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner could not lift the coal, according to him, because of the stand taken by the respondent CCL and consequently, he has not been able to sell the coal in the market incurring loss in the process. The amount in question is still lying with the respondent CCL which led to filing of the present writ application. 4. The sole question, as would appear from the narration of the aforesaid facts, is whether the respondent CCL is justified in not accepting remittance of the winning price made by the petitioner through RTGS as it got credited in their account on 5th of April 2013 because of some technical problem of RTGS? 4. The sole question, as would appear from the narration of the aforesaid facts, is whether the respondent CCL is justified in not accepting remittance of the winning price made by the petitioner through RTGS as it got credited in their account on 5th of April 2013 because of some technical problem of RTGS? The respondent CCL have chosen to stick to their stand that whatever may be the reason for failure of the amount being credited to their account by the last day, they are entitled in law to refuse permission to the petitioner to lift the auctioned coal in question as the amount in question has reached the CCL after the last date i.e. 4th of April 2013. 5. As per Clause 11.12 of the Scheme, in such circumstances, the successful bidder has a option to approach the General Manager (Sales) of the respondent coal company for redressal of his grievances. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. As indicated herein above, the petitioner has been the successful bidder in e-auction held on behalf of the respondent coal company for sale of coal. Under the terms of e-auction scheme, the petitioner or any successful bidder was required to remit the total winning price for the quantity of coal for which auction was held, within the stipulated period. The petitioner admittedly took all steps for remittance of the amount from his account maintained at Allahabad Bank, Circular Road Branch, Ranchi being Current A/c No. 50013402524. The Bank has also issued a certificate on 5th of April 2013 that the amount of Rs. 43,69,520/- was processed on 4th of April 2013 in favour of the CCL Sales Realization Account to debit of this account UTR No. Allah-13095700138 generated by the system on settlement of RTGS. However, as per the certificate issued by the Bank, due to some technical problem, such amount of RTGS was returned on 5th of April 2013. However, the said amount was credited to the CCL Sales Realization Account on 5th of April 2013 once again, in support of which, statement of the said account of the petitioner maintained in Allahabad Bank has been annexed as annexure-10 to the writ application. However, the said amount was credited to the CCL Sales Realization Account on 5th of April 2013 once again, in support of which, statement of the said account of the petitioner maintained in Allahabad Bank has been annexed as annexure-10 to the writ application. This fact, therefore, discloses that the petitioner in due diligence took all steps for remittance of the amount in favour of the CCL as per the specified account which was opened for such transfer under the RTGS procedure. The procedure for remittance under RTGS was also prescribed by the respondent CCL itself. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had no control to withhold the transmission through RTGS after its remittance in the concerned Bank for processing and subsequent credit in favour of the CCL Sales Realization Account. The petitioner also admittedly never issued any instruction to the Bank to withhold such remittance thereafter. The remittance could actually be not credited in the account of CCL because of some technical problem which has been certified by the Bank in question. 7. In such circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner did what was within his capacity to ensure transmission of the remittance of the amount in question in favour of the CCL Sales Realization Account, though for some technical failure, the amount got credited on the next day. This obviously cannot be made a basis on the part of the respondent CCL to deny him to lift the coal for which he was held to be a successful bidder. In such circumstances therefore, the stand of the respondent CCL not to allow the petitioner to lift the coal after such remittance and credit of the amount in question to the respondent CCL, does not appear to stand the test of legal scrutiny and reasonableness. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to lift the coal in question within the period, as per the terms of e-auction scheme. Consequently, the forfeiture of EMD by the respondent CCL would also stand restored. 8. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Petition allowed.