ORDER : Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants (original respondent No. 1) against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015 dated 25.8.2015. The petition was preferred by respondent No. 1 mainly for the reasons that contract was terminated and the earnest money at Rs. 64,908/- was forfeited in terms of Clause 15(b) notice inviting tender. The learned Single Judge has observed in para 12 that as the fresh notice inviting tender has already been issued and work has been allotted to another lowest No. 1, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, the earnest money has been ordered to be refunded as Clause No. 15(b) of NIT is not attracted and hence being aggrieved by this order the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent No. 1. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that e-tender notice was issued bearing e-tender notice No. 9/2014-15 for electrical maintenance work for Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI) for one year at estimated cost of Rs. 64,90,716/-. 3. Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was one of the offerer whose technical bid was accepted on 23rd February, 2015 and there is a communication to that effect which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This technical bid was accepted by respondent No. 1 (original petitioner). 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that thereafter financial bid was opened online in which the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was found as a lowest No. 1 and hence, his bid was accepted on 25th February, 2015 and communication was made to respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) that as per recommendation of the tender committee, petitioner's bid has been accepted being a lowest No. 1 at Rs. 54,63,810/-. 5. It appears that after the technical bid was accepted and communication to that effect vide e-mail dated 23rd February, 2015 (Annexure-2) Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI) pointed out to this appellant that respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was not having requisite experience thus it appears that what is allowed by this appellant is now reviewed by Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI). It appears that an error committed by this appellant by accepting the technical bid of respondent No. 1 is sought to be modified by Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI). It appears that the mistake committed by this appellant in acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No. 1 is now pointed out by Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI) for cancellation of the contract on the ground of want of experience. Thus it appears that what has not been done by this appellant has been, done by Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI). after accepting the technical bid and the financial bid also. 6. Be as it may, now as observed in para-12 of the impugned order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, fresh notice inviting tender has already been published and the work of electric maintenance has already been assigned to another person, but, this appellant has forfeited the earnest money. Looking to the aforesaid facts of this case, this is not permissible in the eye of law. Appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Technical bid was accepted by these appellants dated 23rd February, 2015. There is communication to that effect vide Annexure-2. Even thereafter financial bid was also accepted by this appellant and somebody else has pointed out the error. The contract is cancelled by the respondent No. 1. Thus not only the respondent No. 1 is losing the contract, but, is also losing the earnest money which is at Rs. 64,908/-. For ready reference Clause 15(b) reads as under:- "In case the L-1 bidder fails to submit requisite documents online as per NIT or if any of the information/declaration furnished by L-1 bidder online is found to be wrong by Tender Committee during evaluation of scanned documents uploaded by bidder, which changes the eligibility status of the bidder (for the first time), then the EMD of L-1 bidder will be forfeited and re-tender will be done. In this re-tender, offer from this bidder will not be accepted. This penal action will be enforced from the date of issue of such order." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the aforesaid conditions attached for applicability of Clause 15(b) of NIT, it appears that the said clause is not applicable to the facts of the present case. All the necessary documents were submitted by respondent No. 1. This penal action will be enforced from the date of issue of such order." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the aforesaid conditions attached for applicability of Clause 15(b) of NIT, it appears that the said clause is not applicable to the facts of the present case. All the necessary documents were submitted by respondent No. 1. Some error has been committed by the appellant, which has been subsequently pointed out by Central Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI). 8. Thus, the ingredients of Clause 15(b) are not present in the facts of the present case. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015 vide order dated 25th August, 2015 which has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that in the facts of the present case. Ingredients of Clause 15(b) notice inviting tender are not applicable and hence the appellant cannot forfeit the amount of earnest money which is at Rs. 64,908/- shall be refunded to respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks from today. 9. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No. 5843 of 2015 and I.A. No. 6308 of 2017 are disposed of.