JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called upon. Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent HPCL being the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. G. Pegu, learned ASGI, appearing for the respondent No.1. This matter was earlier called upon on 09.05.2017 and on the said date also, none had appeared for the petitioner. In the above circumstance, this Court deems it appropriate that the matter be taken up for its final consideration even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had participated in a tender process pursuant to a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) dated 22.06.2009 for supply of home grown bamboo by road from and beyond the areas of Boragaon and Parokhowa of Karbi Anglong for the season 2009-2010. In the bidding process, the petitioner was found to be the L1 bidder and accordingly, he was issued with the work order dated 14.08.2009. A statement has been made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition that the petitioner was unilaterally issued with the work order and was asked to return the duplicate copy duly signed by the petitioner within three days. It is also the case of the petitioner that prior to the work order being issued, the petitioner on 10.08.2009 and 18.08.2009 had made representations before the Deputy General Manager (Fiber Development Procurement) about his grievance that in the meantime, there had been an enhancement of the rate of bamboo. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a direction that the earnest money amounting to `50,000/- deposited for the Boragaon package and `1,00,000/- deposited for the Parokhowa package, total being `1,50,000/-, be refunded to the petitioner. 4. In the aforesaid circumstance, the issue for determination is as to whether in the facts and circumstances when the petitioner had participated in the tendering process and he had been issued with the work order and in view of the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Bid as well as the work order, the petitioner is entitled to such a refund. 5. Clause-11.2 of the important terms and conditions provides that in the event, the bidder, amongst others, fails to supply as per the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Bid, the Earnest Money Deposit of such bidder shall be forfeited. 5. Clause-11.2 of the important terms and conditions provides that in the event, the bidder, amongst others, fails to supply as per the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Bid, the Earnest Money Deposit of such bidder shall be forfeited. Again Clause-13.2 of the terms and conditions provides that in case the supplier does not execute any agreement after accepting the terms and conditions of supply order or does not commence supply after acceptance of supply order or fails to supply the ordered quantity as per the delivery schedules and terms and conditions stipulated in the supply order, the earnest money deposit of such supplier shall be forfeited. Clause-13 of the work order dated 14.08.2009 further provides that the supply order is issued in duplicate, which is required to be returned within three days from the receipt thereof, duly signed by the tenderer having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated therein and failing which, the supply order may be cancelled and there shall be no claim of any nature, including the forfeiture of earnest money deposit. 6. Clause-11.2of the important terms and conditions, Clause-13.2 of the terms and conditions and Clause-13 of the supply order are quoted below:- “Clause-11.2: In case the bidders does not commence supply after acceptance of work order/execution of Agreement and/or fails to supply as per terms and conditions of NIB, EMD of such bidder shall be forfeited and such bidder shall be liable to be debarred from participating in the bid of next tender of the same source. However, any such bidder, if found to have participated in this bid, his/their bid shall not be considered valid. Clause-13.2: In case the supplier does not execute any agreement after accepting the terms and conditions of supply order or does not commence supply after acceptance of supply order or fails to supply the ordered quantity as per the delivery schedules and terms & conditions stipulated in the supply order, EMD/SD of such suppliers shall be forfeited and such suppliers shall be liable to be debarred from participating in the immediate next NIB from the same source. Clause-13: Legal Jurisdiction: For any Legal dispute arises, the jurisdiction of settlement will be the Civil Court, Morigaon, Assam This supply order is issued to you in DUPLICATE and you are requested to return the DUPLICATE COPY within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of this supply order duly signed by you having accepted the terms & conditions stipulated herein above along with all the terms & conditions of the NIB, failing which the supply order may be cancelled and you will have no claim of any nature on this supply order including forfeiture of EMD thereafter. Any dispute or ambiguity if arises out of the terms & conditions stipulated herein above, decision of the Corporation’s Chief Executive/ Executive Director shall be final & binding on you.” 7. Further, reference is made to Clause-11.1 of the important terms and conditions that once the bid is submitted, no bidder shall be allowed to withdraw his/her bid within the validity period and in the event, the bidder wants to withdraw their tender within the validity period or before finalization of the order, his EMD shall be liable to be forfeited. Clause-11.1 of the important terms and conditions is quoted below:- “Clause-11.1: Once the bid is submitted, no bidders shall be allowed to withdraw his/their bids within the validity period of the tender. However, if the Bidders wants to withdraw his/their tenders within the validity period or before finalization of order, his/their EMD shall liable to be forfeited.” 8. In the background of the aforesaid provisions of the important terms and conditions, the terms and conditions as well as the terms of the supply order, the question to be examined is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of his earnest money deposit. Further, due consideration also have to be given to the representations dated 10.08.2009 and 18.08.2009, by which the petitioner had expressed his inability to supply the required material. 9. As regards the representations of the petitioner dated 10.08.2009 and 18.08.2009 regarding the expression of his inability to make the supply, reference be made to Clause-11.1 of the important terms and conditions, which provides that once the bid is submitted, no bidder shall be allowed to withdraw his/their bid and in the event, the bidder wants to withdraw his/their bid, the same shall entail the forfeiture of his earnest money deposit. In the event, the said two representations are taken into consideration that the petitioner had expressed his inability to make the supply, the same has to be construed to be an attempt by the bidder to withdraw his bid. In such event also, as per the Clause-11.1 of the important terms and conditions, the bidder has to forfeit his earnest money deposit. On the other hand, if it is construed that upon receiving the supply order, the bidder had failed to return the duplicate copy within three days, then Clause-13 of the supply order will come into effect, which provides that on the failure of the bidder to return the supply order in duplicate within three days, the supply order may be cancelled and there shall be forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. In view of such clause also, the act of the petitioner/bidder in not returning the duplicate copy within three days, is hit by Clause-13 of the supply order and accordingly, the bidder is subjected to forfeiture of his earnest money deposit. 10. Further, on a reading of Clause-11.2 of the important terms and conditions, it can be seen that the same also entails forfeiture of the earnest money deposit by the bidder. The act of the petitioner in not returning the duplicate copy of the supply order within three days, can be termed to be act of failing to supply the materials as per the terms and conditions of the NIB and as such, the petitioner is liable for a forfeiture of his earnest money deposit. Again, Clause-13.2 of the terms and conditions provides that in the event, the supplier fails to supply the ordered quantity as per the delivery schedules and terms and conditions, such supplier would forfeit the earnest money deposit. 11. In the instant case, on the supply order having been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner having received the same; it can be construed to be an act where the petitioner had failed to supply the quantity in delivery schedule. In view of the Clause-13.2 of the terms and conditions also, the petitioner is not entitled for a refund of his earnest money deposit. 12. In view of the above this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for a direction for refund of his earnest money deposit. In view of the Clause-13.2 of the terms and conditions also, the petitioner is not entitled for a refund of his earnest money deposit. 12. In view of the above this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for a direction for refund of his earnest money deposit. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.