JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner by way of demand draft dated 05.08.2009 for lifting of 15062.31 M.T. iron ore lying at Juruli Railway Station, situated in the district of Keonjhar, Orissa. 2. The facts of the case are that in course of loading of iron ore in the Railway Wagon some amount of iron ore fell on the ground and stacked in between two railway lines. It is further stated that gradually, a huge quantity of iron ore accumulated at the loading site from the last 10 years at Juruli siding. The quantity of the aforesaid iron ore is about 15062.31 tones. With a view to remove the aforesaid iron ore from the railway line, it was decided by the Railway Administration to sell those iron ore through the public auction, as per Railway Commercial Manual, Volume-II read with Section 84 of the Railway Act, 1989. It appears that in view of the aforesaid decision, the respondents published an auction notice in daily news papers, namely, Prabhat Khabar and Dainik Jagaran dated 27.07.2009 vide notification no. Comml- 1/Accpt. BKG /Goods/ W. P. (C) No. 1042 of 2010RLI/L/No.4/09 dated 10.07.2009. It is stated that in response to the aforesaid advertisement, four bidders including the petitioner submitted their bids. The aforesaid bids were opened in presence of all the bidders on 06.08.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner's bid was found highest, hence his bid was accepted by the Tender Committee. Thereafter, as per the Auction Rule, petitioner had deposited 25% of the quoted value towards the Earnest Money i.e. Rs. 7,00,000/- through bank draft and Rs. 17,51,391/- through cheque. It then appears that the Railway Administration vide letter dated 25.11.2009 advised the petitioner to deposit Rs. 17,51,391/- through demand draft. By the same letter the petitioner was further advised to deposit the balance amount of the quoted price within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter, otherwise the deposited earnest money will be forfeited and the next higher bidder would be offered to take the material. 3. In reply to the aforesaid letter, petitioner requested the respondents on several occasions for arranging transit permit as per the Rule of Orissa Government for transportation of iron ore. 3. In reply to the aforesaid letter, petitioner requested the respondents on several occasions for arranging transit permit as per the Rule of Orissa Government for transportation of iron ore. Petitioner further stated that as and when transit permit will be arranged, he will deposit the aforesaid amount and remove the materials. However, it appears that the Railway Administration vide letter dated 25.11.2009 ( Annexure-8) again requested the petitioner to deposit Rs. 17,51,391/- towards theEarnest Money, because, the cheque submitted by the petitioner had been bounced. The petitioner was further requested to deposit the remaining bid amount of Rs. 73,54,173/- within 10 days and lift the auctioned materials immediately, otherwise the deposited Earnest Money for the said auction will be forfeited and the next higher bidder will be offered to take the auctioned materials. It appears that again the petitioner reiterated his claim that the Railway Administration should arrange transit W. P. (C) No. 1042 of 2010permit, then only the petitioner will deposit rest amount. It is also stated that since the bid of the petitioner was valid only for 30 days, therefore, petitioner claimed that the Earnest Money deposited be refunded to it. It then appears that thereafter, respondents vide letter dated 15.12.2009 informed the petitioner that since the petitioner has failed to deposit full amount of the Earnest Money as well as the bid amount of the above auction, the Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner, to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-, is forfeited. Against the aforesaid letter dated 15.12.2009 ( Annexure-11), the present writ application filed. 4. It is submitted by Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the State of Orissa, according to law, a transit permit is required for transportation of iron ore. It is submitted that the petitioner requested, on several occasions, that respondents shall arrange the transit permit, so that the petitioner can remove the iron ore lying at Juruli siding, but the respondents failed to arrange the same. Under the said circumstance, respondents are bound to refund the Earnest Money of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner requested, on several occasions, that respondents shall arrange the transit permit, so that the petitioner can remove the iron ore lying at Juruli siding, but the respondents failed to arrange the same. Under the said circumstance, respondents are bound to refund the Earnest Money of the petitioner. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation Vs Indian Rocks, reported in 2009(1) SCC-150 and submitted that in that case, when the State Government refused to issue transit permit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation to refund the earnest amount. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondents be directed to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Sri Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the auction notice, it was clearly mentioned that the bidders must go through the relevant law, rules and regulations, relating to auction kept in the office of Senior Divisional W. P. (C) No. 1042 of 2010 Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. He then submitted that in the circular of the railway, the procedure for disposal of un-connected/ un-claimed articles/materials lying at the station LPO /disposal centre has been incorporated. In the said Circular at Clause 10.1.2 it is clearly stipulated that in case of open bid, on the fall of the hammer, the amount of bid must be paid by the bidder in full. Alternatively, a minimum amount of Rs. 25% of the bid will have to be deposited by the bidder, but in the latter case the balance must paid before the removal of the consignment, which should not be later that 7 days excluding the date of auction. He then submitted that Clause 10.1.3 of said Procedure provides that if the purchaser will fail to remove the articles within 7 working days, after making payment of the balance amount, then the deposit made by the purchasers will be forfeited. It is then submitted that the petitioner was informed by Annexure- 3 and 8 that his bid had been accepted and he was requested to deposit Rs. 17,51,391/- by demand draft towards the Earnest Money and shall also deposit rest of the amount, otherwise, the Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner in the form of demand draft will be forfeited. It is then submitted that the petitioner was informed by Annexure- 3 and 8 that his bid had been accepted and he was requested to deposit Rs. 17,51,391/- by demand draft towards the Earnest Money and shall also deposit rest of the amount, otherwise, the Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner in the form of demand draft will be forfeited. It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid opportunity, petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, therefore, as per rule, the Railway Administration forfeited earnest money deposited by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no stipulation in the auction notice, as well as in the Circular dealing with the procedure for auction that Railway Administration will arrange the transit permit for the purchasers. He then submitted that as per Clause 10 of the Orissa Gazette Notification dated 16.07.2007, any person, who wishes to transport or remove any mineral from any place, shall make an application in Form- 'H' for issuance of permit. It is submitted that the judgment relied by the petitioner has no application in W.P.(C) No. 1042 of 2010 the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. It is an admitted position that the bids submitted in response to the auction notice has been opened on 06.08.2009 and, thereafter, on 12.08.2009, the petitioner was informed that his bid was found highest, therefore, the same had been accepted. The petitioner was advised to deposit Rs. 17,51,391/- through demand draft towards the rest earnest money, within three days of receipt of this letter, failing which the earnest money deposited by it shall be forfeited. It appears that in response to the said letter, the petitioner requested the Railway Administration for arranging transit permit from the Orissa Government. However, there is no averments in the writ application to show that the petitioner had applied for transit permit as per the rule, prevailing in the State of Orissa. 8. From perusal of Clause 10 of Chapter-3 ( Annexure-A), I find that there is a provision that if any person, who wishes to transport or remove any mineral from any place, shall make an application in Form- 'H' for issuance of the permit. 8. From perusal of Clause 10 of Chapter-3 ( Annexure-A), I find that there is a provision that if any person, who wishes to transport or remove any mineral from any place, shall make an application in Form- 'H' for issuance of the permit. Thus, after becoming successful in the auction purchase, it is incumbent for the petitioner to apply for the transit permit, but petitioner has failed to do so. It appears that instead of applying for issuance of the transit permit, petitioner asked the respondents to arrange the transit permit. There is no stipulation in the auction notice as well as in the procedure relating to auction (Annexure-B) that the Railway Administration is responsible for arranging the transit permit for transportation of the materials sold in auction. Under the said circumstance, the claim of the petitioner that since the respondents had not arranged the transit permit, therefore, the petitioner had not deposited the balance amount is wholly misconceived and against the law. W. P. (C) No. 1042 of 2010 9.From perusal of tender notice, I find that there is stipulation in it that before participating in the auction, the bidders must go through the relevant law, rules and circulars relating to auction, which is kept in the office of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. Thus, it will be presumed that petitioner participated in the auction after going through the aforesaid rules and procedure. In that view of the matter, after completion of auction, petitioner is not entitled to refuse to purchase the auctioned materials on the ground that the Railway Administration has not arranged the transit permit for transportation of the materials. 10. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation Vs Indian Rocks (Supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, because in that case, the bidder had applied for transit permit, but the State Government instead of issuing transit permit had directed the Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation to transfer the granite blocks to the department of Mines and Geology and refund the auctioned amount to the bidders. In this case, there is nothing on the record that the petitioner applied for transit permit and the same has been refused by the State Government. In this case, there is nothing on the record that the petitioner applied for transit permit and the same has been refused by the State Government. Thus, the fact of this case is different from that of the aforesaid case, therefore, the ratio of the above decision has no application in this case. 11. Clause 10.1.3. of the Procedure as contained in Annexure-B shows that if the purchaser has failed to deposit the rest of the amount and also failed to remove the articles within seven days excluding the date of auction, then the Earnest Money deposited by the purchaser will be forfeited. 12. In the instant case, I find that by Annexure-3 and 8, petitioner was requested by the Railway Administration for depositing the amount but W. P. (C) No. 1042 of 2010 inspite of that the said amount has not been deposited. Thus, I find that the respondents had rightly forfeited the Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner and there is no illegality in the same. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.