ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 7.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. 2. The petitioner awarded a contract vide order dated 31.3.2011 because he was the highest bidder of recovery of parking fees from two-wheelers and fourwheelers. The petitioner made an offer of Rs.9,54,000/-. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, bicycles and two-wheeler vehicles would be parked near Bargad tree and four-wheeler vehicles would be marked at Gorkhi ground. The petitioner was authorised to collect Rs.5/- per single trip and Rs.100/- monthly from four-wheeler vehicles, Rs.2/- per single tripe and Rs.50/- monthly from scooter/motor cycles and Rs.1/- per single tripe and Rs.15/- from monthly from bicycles. 3. The possession of the land near Bargad tree and Gorkhi ground had not been handed over to the petitioner. Subsequently, the terms and conditions of the contract were changed because the lands were not available to the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- in addition to Rs.4,00,000/-. Following terms and conditions were offered vide order dated 29.2.2012 :- **ikoj lc LVs’ku xksj[kh eSnku ij VªLV ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh laifRr@LokfeRo ds fookn ds pyrs ikfdZax olwyh dk vkf/kiR; izkIr u gksus ls mDr nksuks ikfdZax LFkyksa dh fuEukuqlkj Bsdk jkf’k fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS %& 1- ;g fd pkj ifg;k okgu ikfdZax gsrq xkSj[kh dk Hkhrjh Hkkx u feyus ds dkj.k igyk LFkku xksj[kh xsV ds ckgj cM+ ds isM+ ds ikl nks ifg;k okgu dk {ks=Qy esa o`f) dj jsfyax yxkus ls dqy {ks=Qy 5-917 oxZQhV esa ikfdZax djus rFkk eq[; ckMs+ ij ikfdZax dh mi;ksfxrk@egRo ,oa okgu dh la[;k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq;s LohÑr Bsdk jkf’k dk 2@3 jkf’k #-6]36]000@&fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gSA 2- ikoj lc LVs’ku xksj[kh eSnku xksj[kh ds vanj ikfdZax dh {kerk igys LFkku ds eqdkcys de gksus ls Bsdk jkf’k dk 1@3 #-3]18]000@& fu/kkZfjr ekU; dh tkrh gSA vkids }kjk Bsdk jkf’k isVs dqy jkf’k #-4]00]000@& fuxe dks’k esa tek djkbZ xbZ gSA vr% vki isM ikfdZax xksj[kh xsV ds ckgj cM+ ds ikl dh cdk;k Bsdk jkf’k :-2]36]000@& vanj 24 ?k.Vs fuxe dks”k esa tek djkuk lqfuf’pr djas vU;Fkk fLFkfr esa vkidh fMiksftV #-40]000@& jktlkr dj Bsdk fujLr fd;k tkosxk rFkk cdk;k Bsdk jkf’k dh olwyh fuxe fo/kku ds varxZr ,oa vuqca/k dh ‘krZ Ø-15 ds vuqlkj py@vpy laifÙk ls dh tkosxhA** 4. The petitioner refused to execute the contract in accordance with the changed terms and conditions due to which the deposited amount of Rs.40,000/- was forfeited. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the forfeiture of the amount of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was directed to execute the contract in accordance with changed terms and conditions. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 has held as under in regard to power of the Court in regard to interference in contractual matters. “(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”; (ii) Whether public interest is affected.” 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court further in Jagmohan Singh v. State of M.P. and others reported in (2008)7 SCC 38 has held that the action of the authority in regard to exercise of power of forfeiture is required to be judged on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the present case earlier an invitation was made to the petitioner through advertisement. The petitioner made his offer, it was accepted. However, the petitioner could not be forced to execute the contract on fresh terms and conditions because the petitioner did not submit his tender in accordance with the changed circumstances and conditions. In such circumstances, forfeiture of amount of Rs.40,000/- of the petitioner is contrary to law. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 7.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Respondent Municipal Corporation is directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner with an interest @ 8%. 11. No order as to costs.