JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. RULE. Shri J.V Bhairavia, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following relief; (a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to return the amount of EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by the present petitioner alongwith the security deposit to the tune of Rs. 14,52,500/- and be further pleased to direct the respondent to make payment]of 30% deducted from the bill of the present petitioner. 3. Shri Adil Mirza, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press the relief qua return of the security deposit to the tune of Rs. 14,52,500/- and to return the payment of 30% deducted from the bill with a liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court/forum for the same, and therefore, he has requested to consider the present petition qua the return of EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. Under the circumstances, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with respect to the reliefs qua the security deposit and to return the payment of 30% deducted from the bill with a liberty in favour of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court/forum. As and when such proceedings are initiated the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits, without, in any way, being influenced by the present petition qua the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Now so far as the relief qua the return of the amount of EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- is concerned, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as per Condition No. 13 of the Tender Notice/Circular No. 205/547317 dated 27/05/2017 the moment the work order is issued the EMD is required to be returned within a period of two weeks. It is submitted that though in the present case the work order was issued, EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner, deposited at the time of submitting the tender form, has not been returned. It is submitted that though the petitioner made a request vide communication dated 07/04/2016, EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- has not been returned, and therefore, it is requested to direct the respondent to return the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner, deposited at the time of submitting the tender form, has not been returned. It is submitted that though the petitioner made a request vide communication dated 07/04/2016, EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- has not been returned, and therefore, it is requested to direct the respondent to return the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which the petitioner has deposited by way of EMD with reasonable simple interest at least from January, 2012. 6. Shri J.V Bhairavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent is not in a position to dispute that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner by way of EMD at the time of submitting the tender form. He is also not in a position to dispute Circular No. 205/547317 dated 27/05/2017 by which as per Condition No. 13 if the concerned contractor deposits the security deposit, after the work order is issued in his favour, the EMD is required to be returned within a period of 15 days. 7. In view of the above undisputed facts, the action of the respondent in withholding the EMD of Rs. 5 lakhs cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition succeeds in part. Respondent is hereby directed to return the EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 6% Simple Interest with effect from January, 2012 till the same is actually returned. The aforesaid EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be returned to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today with interest as stated hereinabove. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.