JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 2nd June, 2010, annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, as well as seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner towards 25% of bid amount and earnest money with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that auction notice was issued on 4th December, 2009, inviting bids for grant of contract to collect vehicle entry fee on commercial vehicles entering the Cantonment area via Landhaura-Brigade Road; auction notice clearly stipulates that all interested bidders can obtain detailed terms and conditions between 16th December, 2009 to 5th January, 2010 and auction shall take place on 6th January, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. at the Office of Cantonment Board, Roorkee. Petitioner was declared highest bidder of Rs.82,10,000/- and petitioner deposited 25% of the bid amount with the Cantonment Board then and their. On 18.03.2010, copy of the proposed agreement was sent to the petitioner for his approval within 15 days from 18.03.2010. Having received copy of the proposed agreement, vide letter dated 18.03.2010, petitioner sent his reply on 23.02.2010 informing the respondents that since 90% of the Kumbh Mela, 2010 is over, therefore, petitioner should be granted concession to deposit only 5% of the security and should also be permitted to deposit amount of Theka in weekly installments. On 27.04.2010, petitioner has informed respondent No. 2 that since Kumbh Mela, 2010 is over and till day, approval has not been granted to the Theka, therefore, petitioner is no more interested in Theka and money deposited by the petitioner should be refunded to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has sent letter dated 02.06.2010 informing the petitioner that Cantonment Board, vide Resolution dated 19.05.2010, was pleased to accord approval on the bid of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner should visit the Officer of respondent No. 2 alongwith Rs.100/- stamp paper for the purpose of execution of the agreement and to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount within 15 days of the receipt of this letter failing which the amount already deposited by the petitioner shall stand forfeited. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly bids were held on 6th January, 2010, however, approval was granted by the Cantonment Board to the bid of the petitioner only op 19.05.2010 and before the Board could accord its approval on 19.05.2010, petitioner has withdrawn himself from the bid, in question, vide letter dated 27.04.2010. Further contends that bid ought to have been accepted within reasonable time and respondents cannot sit over the bid for indefinite period. Since, bid was not accepted within ninety days from 06.01.2010, therefore, petitioner has rightly withdrawn himself. Consequently, forfeiture of the money deposited by the petitioner is not appropriate. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Monika Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since Theka was to be granted for one year, therefore, reasonable interpretation would be that one year period shall be reckoned from the date of approval by the Cantonment Board. Further contends that it was nowhere mentioned either in the auction notice or in the terms and conditions of the auction that Theka shall be for the period of Kumbh Mela, therefore, petitioner vide letter dated 27.04.2010, can not withdraw himself from the bid process. He further contends that since petitioner has failed to honour his part of the contract, therefore, forfeiture of the money deposited by the petitioner is correct and valid. He further contends that since there is arbitration clause, therefore, instead of entertaining this writ petition, petitioner should be asked to approach the Arbitrator. 5. Condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of the auction (page No. 14 of the paper book) would reveal that contract was for the period of one year only. None of the terms and conditions of the auction provides that contract shall be for one year from the date of sanction by the Board. Nor it is provided as to within what time sanction shall be granted by the Board. 6. Section 2 (zzf) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 reads as under :- ““year” means the year commencing on the first day of April.” 7. Section 127 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 reads as under :- “Sanction. Nor it is provided as to within what time sanction shall be granted by the Board. 6. Section 2 (zzf) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 reads as under :- ““year” means the year commencing on the first day of April.” 7. Section 127 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 reads as under :- “Sanction. – (1) Every contract – (a) for which budget provision does not exist, or (b) Which involves a value or amount exceeding rupees fifty thousand shall require the sanction of the Board. (2) Every contract other than a contract such as is referred to in sub-section (1) shall be sanctioned by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Board.” 8. Bare perusal of Section 127 of the Act would demonstrate that any contract involving a value or amount exceeding rupees fifty thousand shall require the sanction of the Board, meaning thereby, unless and until contract is sanctioned by the Board, it cannot be given effect to. 9. As discussed hereinbefore, since, none of the terms and conditions provides that one year period of contract shall commence from the date of sanction and none of the terms and conditions provides that as to within what time sanction shall be granted, therefore, as per Section 2 (zzf) of the Act, period of contract would have commenced from 1st April, 2010, for which, bids were held on 06.01.2010, and sanction by the Board ought to have been granted before 01.04.2010 within reasonable time after 06.01.2010, the date of bids. Respondents cannot be allowed to sit over the matter for indefinite period. 10. In the present case, no sanction was granted before commencement of period of contract, i.e. before 1.4.2010. Therefore, petitioner seems to be justified in withdrawing his bid vide letter dated 27.04.2010. Grant of sanction, thereafter, on 19.5.2010, cannot be treated with retrospective effect from 1.4.2010, in view of the fact possession of the site was not handed over to the petitioner on 1.4.2010, i.e. the date of commencement of the year. Sending proposed agreement vide letter dated 18.3.2010 does not amount to any sanction as required under Section 127 of the Act. 11. In my considered opinion, alternate remedy of invocation of Arbitration Clause is no absolute bar to entertain writ petition. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Sending proposed agreement vide letter dated 18.3.2010 does not amount to any sanction as required under Section 127 of the Act. 11. In my considered opinion, alternate remedy of invocation of Arbitration Clause is no absolute bar to entertain writ petition. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 in para 7 has held as under :- “So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged [See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 22 . The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners’ dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.” 12. In the present case, action of the respondents is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. Moreover, what would be the period of commencement of the annual contract, is a pure question of law which cannot be decided by learned Arbitrator. 13. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. Mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund entire amount deposited by the petitioner within 60 days from today, failing which, respondents shall also pay interest thereon @ 10% p.a. from today till amount is paid to the petitioner.