JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. The petitioner-company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacturing of Pig Iron and other allied steel products, has filed the writ petition with the fallowing prayer:- "Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to issue a Rule NISI in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to show cause and if they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the impugned Tender Call Notice No.184/0MC/ S&M/2013 in Annexure-1 be quashed and alternatively; the Opp. Parties should permit the petitioner to-lift balance minerals from the allotted site after regularization of the licenses or allow refund of money to the petitioner for the balance• minerals lying at the sites" 2. The brief facts as involved in the case is that the petitioner participated in an earlier tender notice .floated by the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. for sale of iron ore in 2012. The petitioner was found to be the successful bidder for the Lot No. JSO 31 at Nayagarh Railway siding under Joda Mining Circle for 20,633 MT and Lot No. JSO 32 at Sesa Goa for 60,000 MT. He had paid full and final payment amounting to Rs. 11,34,08,423/- (rupees eleven crores thirty four lakhs eight thousand four hundred twenty three) through RTGS. The petitioner could lift minerals within stipulated time excepting 8407.580 MT at Sesa Goa premises and 20,633.000 MT at Nayagarh Railway siding. For the short fall in lifting the materials, the petitioner approached the authority for extension of time for lifting the balance minerals. Even though Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. granted extension to the petitioner from 26.10.2012 till 13.04.2013 for lifting of balance iron ore from Nayagarh Railway siding but did not grant any extension for Sesa Goa side: The petitioner could not be in a position to lift the balance minerals from both the sites" Petitioner further contended that in the meanwhile the petitioner's trading license was illegally suspended from 29.08.2012 till 16.11.2012 and again from 13.03.2013 till date of filing of the writ petition in spite of quashing of the suspension order by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide its order dated 18.07.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6838 of 2013. In the meanwhile, railway authority also did not allow the petitioner to excavate and remove the materials from line No.3 and stack it at other line and after long persuasion, the railway authority agreed to allow the petitioner for removing the minerals to an empty space near line No.3 and line No.6, but the petitioner submits that the minerals could not be lifted as there was no availability of racks. 3. For deliberate flouting of this Court's order dated 18.07.2013 in W. P.C (C) No. 6838 of 2013 by the opposite parties, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt application vide CONTC No. 1275 of 2013, which is still pending consideration of this Court. It is contended by the petitioner that while the matter stood thus, the Deputy General Manager (S & M), Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. required information frof11 Deputy Director Mines, Joda Circle, Joda- Opp. Party No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation on the issue of grant of further time to the petitioner to lift the balance quantity of ore at Nayagarh railway siding and Sesa Goa premises. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner has got the mineral through open tendering and paid the entire cost and in spite of the fact that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the minerals, for the vindictive attitude of the Director Minerals and the Deputy Director of Mines for suspending license .of the petitioner again and again illegally, the petitioner could not lift balance minerals at allotted site in time. Taking relevance of the provisions under the "terms and conditions for supply of iron ore" it is contended that there is ample provision authorizing the authority to extend the period of removal of minerals on reasonable grounds. The petitioner further alleged that the opposite party NO.1 did not exercise his discretion in extending the period for removal of minerals in spite of existence of reasonable ground, which was otherwise also beyond control of the petitioner. It is alleged that while the matter stood thus the Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. published impugned tender call notice dated 07.10.2013 vide Annexure-6 in the garb of seized ores/minerals particularly the balance mineral pertaining to the petitioner. The petitioner objected the same by way of representation which is still pending consideration. It is alleged that while the matter stood thus the Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. published impugned tender call notice dated 07.10.2013 vide Annexure-6 in the garb of seized ores/minerals particularly the balance mineral pertaining to the petitioner. The petitioner objected the same by way of representation which is still pending consideration. The petitioner alleged that there is no communication of any order even confiscating or seizing the balance minerals of the petitioner. There is no lawful reason for not extending the time in favour of the petitioner, even the authority has not chosen to refund the value of the balance minerals on the other hand the authority in illegal exercise of power proceeded with the impugned tender notice. Petitioner's letter asking the Odisha Mining Corporation for refund of the sum of the balance minerals and the Earnest Deposit Money has not been responded by the authority. There is a valid reason for the petitioner not being able to lift the balance minerals due to permits/orders did not reach the petitioner within reasonable time and also for illegal repeated suspension of the petitioner's license and even though the situation is well within the knowledge of the opposite parties, they are in no mood of considering the case of the petitioner. It is on these premises, the petitioner by filing this writ petition made the prayer as quoted hereinabove. 4. Per contra in response to the notice in the writ petition, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 on their appearance filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as the forfeiture of Earnest Deposit Money is a part of the tender condition and the petitioners is bound by the contract. While admitting that the petitioner emerged H-1 in the bidding process and accordingly was selected to lift the quantity mentioned therein it alleged that despite extension of time, the petitioner failed to lift the quantity within the time frame fixed therein and following Clause no -9, the opposite parties are well within their rights for forfeiting the advance towards value of minerals deposited by the bidder. The opposite parties further averred that based on newspaper item published in Odiya daily "The Dharitri" indicating that the particular allotment has not been given proper consideration, so far as value of the properties is concerned and there has been undue favour shown to the petitioner, a clarification was called for from the concerned Deputy Director Mines. Pursuant to which the Deputy Director Mines, Joda informed Orissa Mining Corporation that the materials lying at Nayagarh railway siding iron ore fines whereas materials laying at Ses Goa iron ore mixed with soil. Finding the reply of Deputy Director Mines, Joda not specific, time for extension, so far as ores lying at Sesa Goa could not be given. At a subsequent point of time, however, the petitioner was granted time so far it relates to iron ore fines at Nayagarh railway siding, which was based on clarification given by Deputy Director Mines, Joda. It is on the premises that there was doubt in relation to quality of materials granted in favour of the petitioner as well as suspension orders were issued from time to time, they were constrained not to grant extension in favour of the petitioner any further. However, on the premises that the suspension and revocation of the license of the petitioner being in the domain of the State these opposite' party Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to have no role in the said matter. These opposite parties claimed that the petitioner itself is responsible for non-lifting of the minerals in time and therefore it itself is responsible for the situation. It is on these premises, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that neither there is any illegal action in the mattter of floating the impugned tender not there is any illegal action by these opposite parties for not granting extension in favour of the petitioner 5. In response to the counter affidavit by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder while reiterating stands already taken in the writ petition, the petitioner submitted that there were sufficient reasons preventing the petitioner from lifting the entire materials and same were due to impossibilities and beyond control of the petitioner. In response to the counter affidavit by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder while reiterating stands already taken in the writ petition, the petitioner submitted that there were sufficient reasons preventing the petitioner from lifting the entire materials and same were due to impossibilities and beyond control of the petitioner. Contending that since the petitioner was found H-1 and the minerals were assigned in favour on the petitioner at a particular value, the petitioner claimed that the opposite parties had no right to do away the left out minerals in absence of any lawful reason. The petitioner further contended that the petitioner has suffered on account of no prompt action by the opposite parties and he has been prevented from lifting the minerals for non-consideration of the ground realities. 6. During pendency of the writ petition, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 filed an additional affidavit in response to a direction of this Court submitting therein that they are not in a position to refund. In response to a query of this Court to the above effect submitted that Odisha Mining Corporation had to deposit immediately with the Deputy Director Mines 80% value of ore collected from the successful tender and at this stage, it is not possible for the Odisha Mining Corporation to get the money back from the Deputy .Director Mines for the un-lifted quantity. 7. Heard the parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition, the counter affidavit, the rejoinder and the additional affidavit. There is no denial of the fact that the mineral of the particular quantity was the subject matter of a tender process. There is also no denial to the fact in the tender process published vide tender call notice no, 184/PMC/S&M/2013 the petitioner became the H-1 and as a consequence of which the minerals involved in the tender process were decided in favour of the petitioner at a particular price. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has deposited the full cost as against the value of the minerals involved in the tender process. The pleadings of the respective parties makes it clear that even though the petitioner was able to lift a substantial part of the quantity allotted by way of tender process but failed to lift some portion of it within the time frame. The pleadings of the respective parties makes it clear that even though the petitioner was able to lift a substantial part of the quantity allotted by way of tender process but failed to lift some portion of it within the time frame. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the authorities extended the time for lifting the balance minerals for lifting the balance iron ore from the Nayagarh railway siding but for not grating any extension of time for lifting the minerals from the Sesa Goa side, the petitioner was unable to lift the balance minerals from both the sites. The pleadings as well as submisssions of all the parties make it clear that the petitioner also faced with illegal suspension of the permission passed in illegal exercise of power and with an Intention to harass the petitioner. The suspension aspect has been examined by this Court in an earlier writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 23684 of 2011. Considering the case of the petitioner this Court was pleased to direct revocation of suspension of license issued against the petitioner's company. It appears that the petitioner's trading license was again suspended further alleging some irregularities and violation pointed out by the State level enforcement squad. The petitioner again moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 17939 of 2012. This matter was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 26.09.2012 and as corrected vide order dated 01.10.2012 with a direction to the Deputy Director Mines, Joda to consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of order. Following the direction of this Court in the second writ petition, the matter was reexamined and the matter in relation to the writ petition was disposed of based on affidavit filed by the petitioner not to repeat the mistake in future. The suspension of the license of the petitioner was revoked by order dated 16.11.2012 subject to realization of penalty of Rs. 25,000/(rupees twenty-five thousand) on the premises of violation of OM Rules, 2007 as under Rule-18 (1) of OM Rules, 2007. 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's license was again suspended on 13.03.2013 which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court against vide W.P.(C) No. 6838 of 2013. 25,000/(rupees twenty-five thousand) on the premises of violation of OM Rules, 2007 as under Rule-18 (1) of OM Rules, 2007. 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's license was again suspended on 13.03.2013 which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court against vide W.P.(C) No. 6838 of 2013. This matter was disposed of on 18.07.2013 and this Court came to hold that suspension order passed against the petitioner is on the self-same cause of action and this Court thereby allowed the writ petition by quashing the order pf suspension dated 13.03.2013. It appears in spite of the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17939 of 2012, the authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner for extension of time in its proper perspective for which the petitioner filed a contempt Case No. 1275 of 2013 and Contempt case is still pending consideration of this Court. All these developments amply establish that the petitioner has been victimized illegally again and again. Consistent plea of the petitioner is that in view of the repeated suspension orders, the petitioners was unable to lift the materials in due time. Further, the tender conditions in which the petitioner became H-1 at Annexure-1 series at Clause-9 stipulates the following "MD/CMD,OMC Ltd, may extend the period of removal of minerals on reasonable ground'. Similarly Clause9 at Annexure-4 another tender call notice as available at Page-33 of the writ petition reads as follows:- . "9. SPECIAL CONDITION: In case of non-lifting of allotted quantity within the stipulated period, advance towards value of mineral deposited by the bidder shall have no claim for the mineral thereafter. However, MD/CMD, OMC Ltd., may extend the period of removal of mineral on reasonable ground." xx xx xx xx 9. In view of the narration made hereinabove, it is amply clear that petitioner has reasonable ground in asking for extension of the period for removal of balance minerals and there was no impediment on the part of the opposite parties in acceding to the request of the petitioner for extending the period of removal of minerals in view of availability of reasonable ground apply provisions as contained in Clause-9 referred to hereinabove. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's case in the matter of extension of time for lifting the balance minerals has not been considered by the opposite parties in the light of the provision contained at Clause-9 of the tender conditions. 10. Further from the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, it also appears that based on an allegation in the newspaper, the opposite parties at one point of time sought for clarification from the Deputy Director Mines to find out the genuineness in the allegation with regard to the tender being undervalued. Even though clarification was submitted by Deputy Director Mines, Joda in relation to Nayagarh railway siding but the said clarification was not clear regarding the ores lying at Sesa Goa. From the averments made by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter, it appears that extension as sought for by petitioner could not be given as the reply of Deputy Director Mines, Joda regarding the ore lying at Sesa Goa was not specific. It is, therefore, clear that the opposite parties adopted various tactics to block the lifting of the balance minerals from the particular sites. The situation did not change even after interference of this Court in the action of the opposite parties. We do not find any lawful reason behind the action of the opposite parties as the ground for issuing the suspension order against the petitioner in the particular matter has been interfered by this Court in two previous writ petitions referred to hereinabove. The petitioner has a clear case establishing the reason for not lifting balance minerals in time. In view of the observations and findings hereinabove, we do not find any reason for not extending the time asked by the petitioner for lifting the balance minerals involved in the tender process. Condition No.8 in the Tender Call Notice for seized ore at Annexure-1 as well as Annexure-4 provide forfeiture of Earnest Deposit Money under particular situation. Since we have held the action of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in the matter of refusal of extension of time for lifting the balance material as bad there is no scope for attracting forfeiture clause in the present case. Further since forfeiture of dues in respect of ores not lifted has no legal support. Since we have held the action of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in the matter of refusal of extension of time for lifting the balance material as bad there is no scope for attracting forfeiture clause in the present case. Further since forfeiture of dues in respect of ores not lifted has no legal support. In the circumstances, there is no reason to go for a fresh tender. By issuing notice in this writ petition, this Court by order dated 18.12.2013 passed the fallowing order: "03.18.12.2013 Issue notice to Opp.party nos. 1 and 2 by speed post. Requisites shall be filed by tomorrow. List again on 15th January, 2014. In the meanwhile, tender process may proceed, but the sale of goods under Annexure-1 in respect of item Nos. JSO31 (B-1) and JSO-32(B) may not be finalized." 11. It appears that the subsequent tender process has not been finalized. In view of our finding in the above paragraphs, we find the impugned tender process vide Annexure-1 is illegal, we set aside the same and direct the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to grant the petitioner three months more time for lifting the balance minerals involved in the tender call notice from the date of communication of the judgment of this Court. In view of above, we further direct the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to grant all necessary consequential permissions to the petitioner in the matter as necessary for lifting the balance minerals involved in the matter. 12. The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed above. However, there shall be no order as to cost. I agree.