JUDGMENT 1. - In assailant is the judgment and order dated 16.09.1996, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.227/1994, instituted by the appellant herein, thereby dismissing the same. 2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Dr. P.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent-Board. 3. The pleaded facts reveal the backdrop of the lis. The respondent-Board had formulated a scheme titled "Jawahar Nagar Scheme" in the city of Jaipur and to effect the allotment of plots thereunder, earmarked certain areas for commercial use and also framed guidelines to conduct the auction thereof and nomenclatured the same as "Terms and conditions of auction of commercial plots". A commercial plot No.B-4, measuring 950.70 sq. mtrs. was put on auction on 19.08.1992 and the appellant/writ-petitioner participated in the process and offered a bid of Rs. 3,875/- per sq. mtr., which was eventually adjudged to be the highest and the auction was knocked down in its favour in terms of clause-4 of the Guidelines, referred to here-in-above. The appellant/writ-petitioner deposited 10% of the bid amount at the spot and further 15% thereof on the next date i.e. 20.08.1992, for which due receipt was issued by the respondent-Board. The appellant/writ-petitioner, thus, by 20.08.1992 had deposited Rs. 9,20,380/- in accordance with clause-4 of the Guidelines. The respondent-Board by its letter dated 15.09.1992, finally accepted the appellant/writ-petitioner's bid in accordance with clause-5 of the Guidelines, but in doing so, demanded of it an additional amount of Rs. 77,663.32 as misc. expenses and development fees and a sum of Rs. 15,46,890/- by way of lease money for 10 years. Thus, though in terms of clause-6 of the Guidelines, according to the appellant/writ-petitioner it was required to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs. 27 lacs and odd, an additional amount of Rs. 16 lacs and odd was sought to be realised from it by the respondent-Board. By letter dated 15.09.1992, the appellant/writ-petitioner was asked to make the payment within 60 days. The appellant/writ-petitioner protested against the said demand by its response dated 09.10.1992, where after a modified demand was laid by the respondent-Board vide its letter dated 13.11.1992, reducing misc. expenses and development charges to Rs. 65,877/- and the lease money for one year i.e. Rs. 1,54,689/- in lieu of 10 years. The appellant/writ-petitioner protested against the said demand by its response dated 09.10.1992, where after a modified demand was laid by the respondent-Board vide its letter dated 13.11.1992, reducing misc. expenses and development charges to Rs. 65,877/- and the lease money for one year i.e. Rs. 1,54,689/- in lieu of 10 years. The total demand was thus scaled down to Rs. 29,83,258/- by the said letter. The appellant/writ-petitioner has averred that while it pleaded before the Estate Officer of the respondent-Board and other authorities against the illegal demand, nothing fruitful did ensue and instead by letter dated 19.12.1992, it was informed that the amount, as demanded vide letter dated 13.11.1992, ought to be deposited within a period of 7 days, failing which its allotment would be cancelled. 4. Situated thus, the appellant/writ-petitioner by its letter dated 02.02.1993, sought for extension of time to deposit the amount, to which the respondent-Board, by its letter dated 03.02.1993, required it to deposit an amount of Rs. 29,83,258/- together with penal interest @ 24% p.a., as it had failed to deposit the principal amount by the time granted. By letters dated 16.02.1993 and 15.04.1993, the appellant/writ-petitioner was again intimated by the respondent-Board to make deposit of the aforementioned amount indicating that on its failure, its bid would be cancelled and 25% of the deposit amount would be forfeited. Eventually by letter dated 24.11.1993, the respondent-Board cancelled the allotment of the above-mentioned plot in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner and forfeited as well 25% of the amount deposited by it. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ-petitioner turned to this Court seeking annulment of the demand contained in the letter dated 13.11.1992 as well as the decision of the respondent-Board cancelling its allotment and forfeiting 25% of its bid amount by it. A direction was also sought for to require it to issue demand notice for balance 75% of the bid amount in accordance with the Guidelines. 6. The respondent-Board, in its reply, while owning the guidelines for auction of commercial plots, did refer to as well the Rationalised Principles of Costing, 1988, Principles of Costing (1993 Revised), Disposal of Property Regulations , 1970 and the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, contending that all these did lay down the principles of costing to govern the whole working of the respondent-Board. Adverting to clause-4 and 5 of the Guidelines, the respondent-Board averred that the highest bidder would be required to deposit the bid amount in accordance therewith and in case of failure to deposit the 75% of the bid amount within the stipulated period, the earlier deposited 25% amount thereof would stand forfeited. It added further that as the respondent-Board was working on the principle of "No Profit No Loss", thus, it has to charge ancillary charges from the parties/persons for whose benefit it renders services like acquisition of land, development of scheme and further maintenance etc. It asserted that the lease money was payable as per the rules in respect of the plot involved and that it was entitled to recover other incidental expenses and charges as well as dues leviable, as narrated in the terms and conditions of the Guidelines. While justifying its demand, the respondent-Board referred to the letter dated 09.10.1992 of the appellant/writ-petitioner and pleaded that as it (appellant/writ-petitioner) had agreed to make the payment, as demanded, it was estopped from questioning the legality and/or validity of the demand. The respondent-Board averred that it was on a sympathetic consideration of the letter dated 09.10.1992 that it had reduced its demand of the lease amount from that of ten years to one year, which was conveyed by the letter dated 13.11.1992. Relying on its letters of demand issued from time to time as well as those dated 26.12.1992 and 02.02.1993 of the appellant/writ-petitioner, the answering respondent dismissed the challenge to its action to be frivolous and unsustainable in law and on facts. 7. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 16.09.1996, in substance, did hold that on receipt of the revised demand intimated by letter dated 13.11.1992, the appellant/writ-petitioner had not objected to the inclusion of the development charges or the lease money and that thus, its delayed cavil to that effect was not entertain-able in law. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ-petitioner preferred the instant appeal, which was disposed of on 17.09.2007 directing the respondent-Board to refund the amount of Rs. 9,20,380/-, being 25% of the appellant/writ-petitioner's bid amount, deposited by it and eventually forfeited. The respondent-Board was further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the said sum. 9. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ-petitioner preferred the instant appeal, which was disposed of on 17.09.2007 directing the respondent-Board to refund the amount of Rs. 9,20,380/-, being 25% of the appellant/writ-petitioner's bid amount, deposited by it and eventually forfeited. The respondent-Board was further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the said sum. 9. The respondent-Board, being aggrieved, laid the debate before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4676/2009, which was disposed of on 24.07.2009 remitting the matter to this Court for proper de novo consideration in accordance with law. Their Lordships, however, did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The instant appeal, thus, is being adjudicated on merits afresh. 10. Mr. Agarwal has emphatically argued that as the auction, by all means, was to be conducted in accordance with the Guidelines, having regard to the stage of the process, the respondent-Board lacked in authority and competence to demand the misc. expenses and development charges as well as the lease money and thus, its demand to that effect, being void ab initio, the appellant/writ-petitioner's non-compliance of its letters for depositing the amount, referred to in the letter dated 13.11.1992, did not warrant cancellation of its allotment and forfeiture of the deposit of 25% of its bid amount. The learned counsel has urged that the appellant/writ-petitioner having deposited 25% of the bid amount within the time prescribed by clause-4 of the Guidelines, the respondent-Board was entitled thereunder to realise only the balance 75% thereof within 60 days from the date of issue of the information accepting the bid, as prescribed by clause-6 of the Guidelines. Mr. Agarwal has insisted that forfeiture of 25% of the bid amount, deposited by the successful bidder, was contemplated only in case of failure to deposit the balance 75% amount within the time permitted and in no other eventuality. Referring to clause-8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Guidelines, the learned counsel has insisted that in terms thereof, after the payment of the bid amount in full, possession of the plot was to be handed over to the successful bidder, whereupon construction thereon was to be completed within 3 years and on completion of the construction, lease deed was to be issued. As the Guidelines did not envisage realisation of the lease money at any point of time prior to the completion of the construction and execution of the lease deed, the respondent-Board was not authorised to realise the same or any misc. expenses and development charges, he maintained. While contending that the demand to this effect had been fully invalid, Mr. Agarwal argued that neither the letter dated 09.10.1992 nor the subsequent communications dated 26.12.1992 and 02.02.1993 of the appellant/writ-petitioner could be construed to convey any concession or admission on its part to make the payment of the amount demanded by way of misc. expenses and development charges as well as the lease money, as conveyed by letter dated 13.11.1992 and thus, the plea of estoppel is wholly misconceived. Referring to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner, Mr. Agarwal urged that as meanwhile the plot involved has been resold in fresh auction, the appellant/writ-petitioner's relief, at this point of time, is confined, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, as available in law, only to the refund of the amount deposited by way of 25% of the bid value together with interest. 11. To reinforce his arguments, Mr. Agarwal placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation And Others v. Hari Om Enterprises And Another, (2009) 16 SCC 208 and of the Gujarat High Court in Jayant Shantilal Sanghvi & Ors. v. Vadodara Municipal Corpn. & Anr., AIR 2011 Gujarat 122. 12. Per contra, Dr. Jain has argued that the demand by way of misc. expenses and development charges as well as the lease money not only is valid being contemplated and permissible under the Guidelines, the unreserved readiness on the part of the appellant/writ-petitioner to make the payment thereof and its request for extension of time to enable it to do so, disentitles it to any relief in the instant proceeding. To buttress this plea, Dr. Jain has referred to the letter dated 13.11.1992 of the respondent-Board and letters dated 09.10.1992, 26.12.1992 and 02.02.1993 of the appellant/writ-petitioner, in particular. The learned counsel has argued further that as the impugned action has been taken after affording more than reasonable opportunities to the appellant/writ-petitioner to deposit the amount, it cannot also be repudiated to be unfair. Jain has referred to the letter dated 13.11.1992 of the respondent-Board and letters dated 09.10.1992, 26.12.1992 and 02.02.1993 of the appellant/writ-petitioner, in particular. The learned counsel has argued further that as the impugned action has been taken after affording more than reasonable opportunities to the appellant/writ-petitioner to deposit the amount, it cannot also be repudiated to be unfair. Apart from contending that the appellant/writ-petitioner is estopped from laying a challenge, as done, as the dissension has its root in the contract between the parties, this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ought not to interfere, he insisted. According to Dr. Jain, the impugned judgment and order, thus, does not call for any interference. 13. We have traversed the pleadings, perused the documents available and analyzed the arguments advanced. 14. Significantly, when queried by this Court, Dr. Jain had been candid enough to admit that apart from the Guidelines, referred to here-in-above, there is no rules, regulations or norms either governing the process of auction of the commercial plots, as involved, or even relevant otherwise for the purpose or having any bearing on the issues seeking adjudication. It is, thus, apparent that the Guidelines alone did, at all relevant times, govern and administer the auction process to its logical end culminating in the issuance of the lease deed. The relevant clauses of the Guidelines, thus, deserve to be extracted as herein below:- "(2). Every bidder before being permitted to bid in auction shall be required to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash or demand draft as earnest money in the name of Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur which shall be refunded at the close of the bid except in case of successful bidder in whose case it would be adjusted against the bid amount of accepted bid. (4). The highest bidder shall be required to deposit a sum equivalent to 10% of his bid amount (including the initial deposit of Rs. 50,000/-) in cash on the spot and amount equivalent to 15% of the bid amount within 24 hours in the aforesaid manner. In case of failure of deposit 10% or 15% amount within the aforesaid period, the amount deposited shall stand forfeited. 50,000/-) in cash on the spot and amount equivalent to 15% of the bid amount within 24 hours in the aforesaid manner. In case of failure of deposit 10% or 15% amount within the aforesaid period, the amount deposited shall stand forfeited. (6) On acceptance of the bid, the successful bidder will be informed of such acceptance in writing and will be required to deposit the balance amount of the bid i.e. 75% of the bid amount within 60 days from the date of issue of the information of acceptance of bid. (7) In case of failure to deposit the balance 75% amount of the bid with the RHB as per the time schedule given in (6) above, the 25% amount deposited by the bidder shall stand forfeited and the RHB shall be competent to re-auction the commercial plot. (8) The lease money shall be payable as per rules. Any money payable by lease, in respect of the plot 16 not paid in time, shall be recoverable as arrear of land revenue, as per present rule the annual lease money of the plot is 162.75 per. sq. mtrs. (9) The construction work of the plot of land shall be completed within 3 years from the issue of possession letter, failing which RHB shall be competent to resume the land without compensation to the purchaser. (10) After full amount of the bid, due against the bidder is deposited by the purchaser, the RHB grant permission which would enable him to start construction on the plot in accordance with the plans approved by the RHB. (11) The lease deed of the land would be issued on the certificate of completion of the construction is obtained from the RHB. Transfer of land or the building thereon, prior to the issuing of the lease deed, will not be permissible. Sub-leasing and sub-letting of this plot is not permitted. (12) The cost and expenses for preparation, stamping and registration of the lease deed and its copies and all other incidental expenses will be borne by the purchaser. The purchaser shall also pay the duty on transfer of immovable property levied by the Municipal Council of Jaipur or any other duty or charges that may be levied by any other Authority/State/Central Government/Local body etc. 15. The purchaser shall also pay the duty on transfer of immovable property levied by the Municipal Council of Jaipur or any other duty or charges that may be levied by any other Authority/State/Central Government/Local body etc. 15. The text, quoted above, would indicate that in terms of clause-4, the highest bidder was required to deposit a sum equivalent to 10% of the bid amount (including the initial deposit of Rs. 50,000/-) in cash at the spot and a further amount equivalent to 15% of the bid amount within 24 hours. This stipulation enjoins further that in case of failure of deposit of 10% or 15% amount, as contemplated, within the aforesaid period, the amount deposited would stand forfeited. As per clause-6, on the acceptance of the bid, the successful bidder would be informed of such acceptance in writing and would be required to deposit the balance amount of the bid i.e. 75% of the bid amount within 60 days from the date of issue of the information of acceptance of the bid. Clause-7 provides that in case of failure to deposit the balance 75% amount of the bid as per the time schedule accorded by clause-6, 25% amount deposited by the bidder would stand forfeited and the respondent-Board would be competent to re-auction the commercial plot. While clause-8 provides that lease money was payable as per rules and that annual lease money of the plot at that point of time was Rs. 162.75 per sq. mtrs., in terms of clause-10, after payment of the full amount of bid, the respondent-Board would issue permission to enable the bidder to start construction on the plot in accordance with its plans approved by it. Clause-9 provides for a outer limit of 3 years for completion of the construction reckoned from the issuance of the possession letter and in terms of clause-11, the lease deed of the land is to be issued after a certificate of completion of the construction was obtained from the respondent-Board. Clause-12 stipulates that the cost and expenses for preparation, stamping and registration of the lease deed and its copies and all other incidental expenses were to be borne by the purchaser. 16. The scheme of the Guidelines, to the extent as indicated here-in-above and encompassing the aspects relevant for the present adjudication, does not, in our comprehension, contain any provision authorising the respondent-Board to realise misc. 16. The scheme of the Guidelines, to the extent as indicated here-in-above and encompassing the aspects relevant for the present adjudication, does not, in our comprehension, contain any provision authorising the respondent-Board to realise misc. expenses and development charges and more particularly the lease money at the stage of payment of 75% of the bid amount by the successful bidder on conveyance of the information of acceptance of the bid. In the face of the categorical admission on the part of the respondent-Board, as has been conveyed to this Court in course of the arguments that no other rule, regulation or norm is either existent or relevant or is applicable vis-a-vis the process of auction of commercial plot culminating in the issuance of lease deed, we are of the un-hesitant opinion that the demand of misc. expenses, development charges and the lease money, as raised by the respondent-Board vide its letters dated 15.09.1992/13.11.1992, is clearly illegal and non est in law. 17. In that view of the matter, imposition of penal interest and eventual cancellation of the allotment of the appellant/writ-petitioner and the forfeiture of the deposit of 25% of the bid amount, is adjudged to be invalid. Not only, as per clause-4 and 7 of the Guidelines, deposit of 10%, or 15%, or 25% of the bid amount can be forfeited in case of failure to make the payment within the time allowed in the manner provided, there is no stipulation, to reiterate, in the Guidelines empowering the respondent-Board to realise the lease money or misc. expenses and development charges at the stage of deposit of 75% of the bid amount. To the contrary, a cumulative reading of clause-8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Guidelines evinces that on deposit of 75% of the balance amount, possession of the plot would be handed over to the bidder and construction has to be raised thereon as per the plans approved by the respondent-Board to be completed within 3 years from the issuance of the possession letter, where after the lease deed would be issued on receipt of the certificate of completion of the construction. The cost and expenses for preparation, stamp and registration of the lease deed and its copies and other incidental expenses logically relatable to the stage of execution of the lease deed would be borne by the purchaser/bidder. The cost and expenses for preparation, stamp and registration of the lease deed and its copies and other incidental expenses logically relatable to the stage of execution of the lease deed would be borne by the purchaser/bidder. It is only as per clause-7 that on the failure of the bidder to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount as per the time schedule given in clause-6 that 25% of the bid amount deposited, would stand forfeited and the respondent-Board would be competent to re-auction the commercial plot. Noticeably, as mandated by clause-8, lease money if not paid, would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. No consequence of cancellation of allotment or forfeiture of the deposit of 25% of the bid amount, is either envisaged or permitted by the stipulation. 18. A plain reading of the letter dated 09.10.1992 of the appellant/writ-petitioner, written in response to the letter dated 15.09.1992 raising initial demand, would demonstrate its readiness to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount to facilitate the receipt of possession of the plot. Though with some reservation, it did agree to arrange the amount of misc. expenses and the development charges, it was of the clear view that insistence for payment of lease money was wholly unwarranted and that the demand of interest thereon, was also against the financial norms of the respondent-Board. The demand to this effect was indicted to be improper and inappropriate. 19. As adverted to here-in-above, on receipt of this letter, the respondent-Board reduced the demand on both the counts i.e. misc. expenses and development charges as well as the lease money. This letter, as the appellant/writ-petition claimed, was received by it on 15.11.1992. As the footnote contained therein would reveal, it had been issued in modification of the earlier demand dated 15.09.1992, but was construed to be so on the same date i.e. 15.09.1992. As the demand raised by the letter dated 15.09.1992 was required to be met within a period of 60 days therefrom, it was thus implied that the letter dated 13.11.1992 was supposed to be complied with by 14.11.1992. Presumably, having realised the illogical-ness in its approach, the respondent-Board vide its letters dated 19.12.1992, 03.02.1993, 16.02.1993 and 15.04.1993, did grant further time to the appellant/writ-petitioner to make the payment of the amount, as demanded. Presumably, having realised the illogical-ness in its approach, the respondent-Board vide its letters dated 19.12.1992, 03.02.1993, 16.02.1993 and 15.04.1993, did grant further time to the appellant/writ-petitioner to make the payment of the amount, as demanded. To reiterate, by the communication dated 03.02.1993, it (respondent-Board) demanded penal interest @ 24% p.a. as well on this amount. Though by letters dated 26.12.1992 and 02.02.1993, the appellant/writ-petitioner sought time to make the payment, in our view, having regard to the relevant clauses of the Guidelines, this request for extension of time cannot be regarded as an unqualified submission of the appellant/writ-petitioner to the impugned demand made, dehors its stand in its letter dated 09.10.1992, so as to non suit it on the ground of estoppel. This is moreso as the respondent-Board being a public authority, it has to be essentially and rigorously hold to its Guidelines being its professed norms pertaining to the auction of commercial plot and grant of leasehold rights in connection therewith. There is no escape from the proposition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the respondent-Board having regard to its statutory status organic attributes of a public institution, has to be indispensably fair, transparent, objective and lawful in its decisions and actions. As the Guidelines, in our comprehension, do not permit realisation of the misc. expenses, development charges and the lease money at the stage of deposit of balance 75% of the bid amount, it was not permissible for it to raise the impugned demand and then saddle the appellant/writ-petitioner further with penal interest. On the analogy of reasonings, its action of cancelling the allotment of the appellant/writ-petitioner and forfeiture of its deposit of 25% of the bid amount, is vitiated in law. The impugned action of the respondent-Board is discernibly repugnant to the Guidelines being scrutable on the face of the record, the plea against the exercise of writ jurisdiction also does not weigh with us. There is, as such, no disputed question of facts to be delved into and thus, though the controversy may have its roots in a transaction with contractual features. the same does not pose any bar to the exercise of power of judicial review by a writ Court, having regard to the nature of the challenge raised. 20. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The impugned judgment and order is interfered with. the same does not pose any bar to the exercise of power of judicial review by a writ Court, having regard to the nature of the challenge raised. 20. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The impugned judgment and order is interfered with. However, in view of the limited relief sought for by the appellant/writ-petitioner, in the face of the intervening developments, while adjudging the demand made vide letter dated 13.11.1992, imposition of penal interest and cancellation of allotment of the plot of the appellant/writ-petitioner, to be invalid, we hereby only direct the respondent-Board to refund the amount of deposit of 25% of the bid money i.e. Rs. 9,20,380/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. on and from 24.11.1993 i.e. the date of forfeiture thereof, till the actual payment. As the aspects of cancellation of the allotment of the appellant/writ-petitioner and consequential re-auctioning of the plot involved, in the facts and circumstances of the case, have been rendered only to be of academic interest, in view of the categorical stand of the appellant/writ-petitioner compressing the relief to refund only as afore stated, we make it clear that the adjudication made herein pertaining to these aspects notwithstanding, it would not be open for it to claim any relief on the basis thereof in future. In other words, the relief to the appellant/writ-petitioner is hereby limited only to the refund of the amount of Rs. 9,20,380/- (Rupees Nine lacs twenty thousand three hundred eighty only), referred to here-in-above, with interest @ 9% p.a. on and from 24.11.1993, till the date of realisation thereof. 21. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.Appeal allowed. *******