JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. In response to a tender call notice issued by the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (OSCSC) for appointment of handing and transport contractor for transportation of food grains, the petitioner had applied and in terms of clause-9 of the tender call notice, he had deposited a sum of rupees one lakh as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). 2. Being the lowest bidder, on 16.04.2013 the petitioner was selected for appointment of handing and transport contractor. He was thus, directed to submit the documents for verification and execute the agreement on or before 23.04.2013. Admittedly, neither the petitioner furnished any document for verification and execution of the agreement, nor approached the authority concerned on or before 23.04.2013. It was only on 25.04.2013, which was two days after the last date for execution of the agreement, that the petitioner informed the corporation that because of illness, he would like to withdraw from the tender process. The petitioner thereafter asked for refund of the EMD, for which he gave a representation on 10.06.2013, and a reminder on 19.12.2013. By order dated 24.12.2013, the corporation rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund, as the same had already been forfeited. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 3. We have heard Sri S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party-corporation, and perused the records. Counter affidavit has been filed, to which learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner fell ill on 23.04.2013 (which was the last date for submission of documents and execution of the agreement), and was referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. On the next day, i.e., 24.04.2013, the petitioner was again examined at City Hospital and advised to take bed rest. In these circumstances, the petitioner informed the opposite party-corporation on 25.04.2013 of his inability to enter into the agreement and take up the job of handing and transport contractor and prayed for withdrawal from the tender process. On the next day, i.e., 24.04.2013, the petitioner was again examined at City Hospital and advised to take bed rest. In these circumstances, the petitioner informed the opposite party-corporation on 25.04.2013 of his inability to enter into the agreement and take up the job of handing and transport contractor and prayed for withdrawal from the tender process. It is also contended that the work, for which the petitioner was to be allotted under tender call notice, has been allotted to another contractor, namely, Ashok Kumar Sahoo at the same price which the petitioner had quoted and, as such, the opposite party-corporation has not suffered any loss. 5. Be that as it may, after acceptance of bid on 16.04.2013, the petitioner admittedly did not submit any document for verification or make any effort for execution of the agreement, for which 23.04.2013 was the last date. According to the own case of the petitioner, it was only on 23.04.2013 that he fell ill, because of which he could not get the agreement executed. No intimation was given by the petitioner prior to the last date for entering into the agreement. 6. The relevant clause-9.2 relating to EMD provides for forfeiture in case the successful tenderer fails to furnish the requisite security deposit by the date prescribed for execution of agreement. The relevant clause-9.2 is extracted below: “Earnest Money Deposited (EMD):- 9.1. xxx xxx xxx 9.2. EMD shall be forfeited in case he (sic ‘the’) successful Tenderer fails to furnish the requisite security deposit by the date prescribed by the District Manager for execution of Agreement and to take up the work, without prejudice to any other right and remedies of Corporation under the contract and law.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Pratap Chandra Parida v. State of Orissa, 2012 (II) OLR 855 in support of his contention that the EMD should be released, if the petitioner withdrew any time before completion of contract. The facts of the said case are different from that of the present case, as in that case when the technical bid was opened, there was no offer made by the petitioner and at that stage the petitioner had withdrawn his candidature. The facts of the said case are different from that of the present case, as in that case when the technical bid was opened, there was no offer made by the petitioner and at that stage the petitioner had withdrawn his candidature. In the present case, the tender of the petitioner had been accepted and the petitioner was required to enter into an agreement, which he did not. Forfeiture of the EMD is on the basis of the specific clause, which provides that after acceptance of the tender, if the candidate fails to enter into agreement, the EMD can be forfeited. Hence, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. The forfeiture of the EMD of the petitioner is under the clause of the said tender paper. Since the facts are admitted by the petitioner that even after acceptance of his tender, he had not furnished requisite documents within the specified time and could not get the agreement executed on or before 23.04.2013, the EMD deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited by invoking clause-9.2 of the tender paper, which in our view, cannot be faulted. We, thus, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 24.12.2013 which is impugned in this petition. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.