JUDGMENT S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners by way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have approached this Court with following prayers: (a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the Collector, Rajkot District and also letter dated 11.01.1999 passed by the Respondents. (b) Your Lordships be pleased to order the respondents to accept the remaining amount of 90% of the bid amount from the petitioners and thereby give the possession and title of the said land to the petitioners. (c) Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents from disposing of the said property in any manner whatsoever, during the admission, pendency and final disposal of the present petition. (d) Your Lordships be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para 9(c). (e) Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other and further relief that may be deemed fit and expedient in the interest of justice. Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the order dated 09.03.2004, whereunder the 10% amount of land price deposited by the petitioners was forfeited and allotment was cancelled on the ground that petitioners did not avail the opportunity of getting the land after depositing the remaining 90% of the land price. 3. Facts in brief leading to filing this petition, as could be gathered from the memo of the petition, deserve to be set out as under. 4. The respondent authorities invited parties to bid for purchase of land mentioned in the advertisement which was released on 10.09.1996. The terms and conditions were indicated and the time limits for taking various steps were also intimated. The petitioners participated jointly for a plot of land and they were second highest bidder. The first highest bidder did not comply with the conditions and hence a letter was issued to the petitioners inviting them to avail the opportunity of getting plot no.4. The said letter is at Annexure-J, dated 31.08.1998. The petitioners in response thereto addressed a letter dated 10.09.1998 seeking extension of time for paying the remaining 90% of land price. The petitioners thereafter sent repeated reminders enquiring with the authorities in respect of the extension of time and opportunity to pay the remaining 90% of the land price. The said letter is at Annexure-J, dated 31.08.1998. The petitioners in response thereto addressed a letter dated 10.09.1998 seeking extension of time for paying the remaining 90% of land price. The petitioners thereafter sent repeated reminders enquiring with the authorities in respect of the extension of time and opportunity to pay the remaining 90% of the land price. But without any avail, the petitioners received communication on 09.03.2004, indicating that on account of their failure in compliance with the conditions for getting the land in question, the 10% deposit amount stood forfeited and the allotment was cancelled. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, the present petition came to be filed with the prayers mentioned hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order of forfeiture of the amount and cancellation of allotment was contrary to the provision of law and as such is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that the authorities were under obligation to grant an opportunity of being heard before effecting the forfeiture and cancelling the allotment. The petitioners have not been heard despite there being term incorporated in the condition itself that before taking any action against the plot holders, the opportunity will be given and thereafter only the action will be taken. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thereafter submitted that in any event from any angle the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside, as the impugned order entails civil consequences, inasmuch as, the petitioners’ 10% deposit money is forfeited and the petitioners’ right to enjoy the land is also extinguished without there being any opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued for allotting the land at the prevalent agreed amount. 8. Learned AGP vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that as per the terms of the advertisement and invitation to bid, the petitioners did not act and therefore there was no question of affording an opportunity of being heard. The principle of natural justice cannot be stretched so as to confer undue benefit upon the authorities who has been well aware about its obligation under the scheme. The principle of natural justice cannot be stretched so as to confer undue benefit upon the authorities who has been well aware about its obligation under the scheme. In the instant case, therefore, the voluminous documents produced on record indicate that the petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, did not avail the opportunity and did not care to see to it that the amount of 90% is paid in time. Therefore, in terms of the advertisement the 10% deposit has rightly been forfeited. Learned AGP further submitted that otherwise also there appears to be no infirmity or no illegality in the order impugned in this petition. 9. The Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers. The facts, as could be seen from the petition, clearly indicate that the petitioners were well aware about the terms of auction and in accordance there with they availed the opportunity of obtaining the land in question. The remaining 90% amount was to be paid within 30 days from the stipulated date. The letter at is clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioners were categorically called upon to avail the opportunity and obtain the chalan for depositing remaining 90% of amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. If that opportunity is not availed and the time is sought, it was at the risk of the petitioners the said attempt was made, or else, as per the terms of auction there was no possibility of relaxation in the time for paying the amount. When the relaxation itself is not envisaged, the attempt on the part of the petitioners to seek little more time was of no avail and could not have been legitimately approved by the authorities. 10. When the relaxation itself is not envisaged, the attempt on the part of the petitioners to seek little more time was of no avail and could not have been legitimately approved by the authorities. 10. It is also important to note that the close perusal of the communication sent by the petitioners pursuant to the communication received, which is produced at page no.35, also indicate that the petitioners did not have wherewithal at the relevant time to make the payment of 90% nor did they have any clear estimate of time as to till what time they can muster their resources to fulfill the obligation of payment of 90% of land price and, therefore, when the petitioners chose not to indicate any specific time for extension of period for payment of 90% of land price, then that itself is quite suggestive of the petitioners’ approach, so far as the land is concerned. 11. It cannot be gain said that principle of natural justice are required to be followed, if the result and action is ensuing civil consequences, but in the instant case one can easily say that the entire transaction was that of land, wherein the bidders were invited. The sale was to be effected and the terms and conditions were well known by all the parties concerned. When there was no provision for any relaxation, then the relaxation sought, in a way, terms could not have been of any avail to the petitioners and action impugned, therefore, in my view, is not obnoxious as to call for any interference with the order impugned. 12. In the result, petition being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.