Judgment Amitava Roy, J. Heard Mr. H.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. The relevant facts required to be noted are that in response to a notice issued by the opp. party-Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) for collection of cashew nuts with Thalamus from the plantation lots of Bhubaneswar (Commercial) Division, Berhampur (Commercial) Division and Bhanjanagar (Commercial) Division for the period ending 31.7.2007 (2010, 2011 and 2012 crop), the petitioner submitted his tender accompanied by the required documents as well as the earnest money deposit for cashew plantation lot No.8/10 of Berhampur (C) Division. The petitioner was adjudged as the highest bidder for the said lot. As admitted by him, the earnest money deposit of Rs.99,988/- offered by him was less than 15 % of the tender amount to be deposited. While the matter stood thus, by the impugned order dated 16.01.2010 his EMD of Rs.99,988/- was forfeited as the same did not count up to 15% of the offer amount as per Clause 4(b) of the terms and conditions of sale. According to the petitioner, this decision is arbitrary and discriminatory as vis-a-vis the other tenderers for cashew plantation lot No.15/10 and 27/10 of Berhampur (C) Division a notice had been issued to the defaulted tenderers to deposit the differential EMD amount. By an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has also brought on record such notices in an earlier process initiated for the year 2009. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the opp. party-Corporation had afford opportunity to the defaulting tenderers situated persons like the petitioner to make deposit of the deficit EMD amount, the impugned action is per se unfair in absence of similar opportunity to him and thus ought to be adjudged illegal and null and void. In the instant case, admittedly, the EMD amount of Rs. Rs.99,988/- offered by the petitioner was short of 15% of his bid amount and thus was not in conformity with Clause No.4(a) of the terms and conditions of sale notice. Not only the said terms and conditions did not contemplate any prior opportunity to such defaulting bidder to make up the deficit in the EMD amount, we are of the view, that assuming that the opp. Not only the said terms and conditions did not contemplate any prior opportunity to such defaulting bidder to make up the deficit in the EMD amount, we are of the view, that assuming that the opp. party-Corporation had afforded scope liberty to other similarly situated persons vis-à-vis different lots, the impugned action thereby was not rendered invalid more particularly as the same was in accordance with Clause No.4(a) & (b) of the terms and conditions of sale. A plain perusal of the order dated 16.01.2010 would reveal that the EMD amount of three other defaulting tenderers similarly stood forfeited as per Clause No.4(b) of the terms and conditions of sale. The relevant provisions of Clause 4(a), 4(b), 12 and 14 of the terms and conditions of sale are quoted herein below: “4(a) Intending tender shall be required to submit tender only in the prescribed form to be obtained from the above address as well as from concerned Divisional Managers/Sub-Divisional Offices on payment of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) (non-refundable) with initials and seal of the issuing officer. Each tender must accompany with Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.), 15% of the tendered amount in shape of Account Payee Bank Draft drawn at any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank payable at Bhubaneswar in favour of “Odisha Forest Development Corporation Limited”, Money Receipt in support of purchase of tender form, up to-date VAT clearance certificate in form VAT-612 and VAT Registration Number (TIN). Non-submission shall disqualify the tender. 4(b) The tender with highest bid, but not accompanied with prescribed E.M.D. shall be forfeited with deposited E.M.D. on tenders of the lot in question, which shall be settled as deemed fit by the OFDC Ltd. xx xx xx xx -for 2010 crop year – on or before_______ -for 2011 crop year – on or before 30.09.2010. -for 2012 crop year – on or before 30.09.2011” 9. The above quoted text would demonstrate in clear terms that the impugned action of forfeiture of the earnest money deposit of Rs.99,988/- on the petitioner’s failure to comply Clause No.4(a) was in valid compliance of Clause Nos.4(b). Thus, the impugned action is not only inconformity with the relevant clauses of the terms and conditions of sale but also in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 10. Thus, the impugned action is not only inconformity with the relevant clauses of the terms and conditions of sale but also in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 10. As it is in a process initiated by the State, its instrumentalities and any public authority contemplating participation of eligible members of the public, the professed norms and stipulations proclaimed to govern the same ought to be strictly adhered to. In other words, such an authority for the sake of fairness, transparency and objectivity in the process is to be held rigorously to such norms and stipulations lest the exercise undertaken degenerates to be unfair, clandestine, veiled and discriminatory. Inflexibility in the matter of enforcement of such norms to ensure uniformity in approach and consistency in decision is thus an inviolable imperative in every public participatory process. 11. It has been held time out of number by the Hon’ble Apex Court that an essential tender condition must be strictly adhered to as reiterated in Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 247 and in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Ajoy Mehta, (2009) 3 SCC 458 . 12. This judicially evolved rule on administrative law has reverberated since the classical enunciation of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Seaton (1959) 359 US 535, and referred to with approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air Port Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , wherein it was predicated that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and that it must scrupulously observe those standards on the pain of invalidation of an act of any violation thereof. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to reiterate, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned action is in strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the sale and thus no interference in the exercise of power of judicial review, in our comprehension, is warranted. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. Dr. A.K. Rath, J. I agree.