JUDGMENT : K.R.MOHAPATRA, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash letter dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure-8) of the General Manager (Civil), Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the Corporation’)-opposite party No.3 forfeiting the EMD of the petitioner, and also to issue a direction to the opposite parties to accept the amount detailed in letter dated 22.04.2016 (Anneuxre-2) and to take consequential action. 2. Pursuant to the tender call notice dated 02.03.2016, the petitioner, along with two others, participated in the tender process of “Krushnadaspur-Udayagiri-Ratnagiri Road Toll gate, Chainage 0.6 K.M. at Manduka, for the year 2016-17” (for short ‘the tender’). The bids were opened on 26.03.2016 in presence of the bidders and the petitioner was adjudged to be the highest bidder. Accordingly, letter dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure-2) was issued to the petitioner by opposite party No.3 intimating that his bid for the tender amounting Rs.32,95,000/-has been accepted. He was also required therein “to deposit an amount of Rs.9,42,225/-on or before 29.04.2016 at the Head Office in the shape of A/c Payee Demand Draft in favour of the O.B. & C.C. Ltd. payable at Bhubaneswar for drawal of Agreement, failing which your bid shall be cancelled along with forfeiture of E.M.D. as per relevant clause of the bid.” The said letter was sent by speed post on 25.04.2016 and was delivered to the petitioner on 28.04.2016, i.e, a day before he was required to deposit the aforesaid amount. As the petitioner could not deposit the aforesaid amount by 29.04.2016, his EMD was forfeited, which was communicated to him vide letter dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure-8). Hence, this writ petition has been filed for quashing the said order dated 04.05.2016 and for consequential relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of the letter at 5.00 PM on 28.04.2016, the petitioner had met the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (O.P. No.2) of the Corporation on 29.04.2016 in his office at Bhubaneswar and had requested for three days time to deposit the required amount and the opposite party No.2 told him to come prepared with 50% of the amount on the next date, i.e., 30.04.2016. Although he had gone to the office of opposite party No.2 with a draft of Rs.6.0 lakh, he was not allowed to meet the opposite party No.2 and his demand draft was not accepted. Although he had gone to the office of opposite party No.2 with a draft of Rs.6.0 lakh, he was not allowed to meet the opposite party No.2 and his demand draft was not accepted. However, he was asked to come ready with the entire amount on 2nd May, 2016. But the said amount was also not accepted. On the other hand, he received the letter under Annexure-8 on 04.05.2016 forfeiting his EMD. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide letter No.22.4.2016 (Annexure-2), he was given seven days time to deposit the amount mentioned therein, i.e., till 29.04.2016. Since he received the letter on 28.04.2016 at 5.00 PM it was not possible on his part to arrange the entire money within 24 hours. Hence, he prayed for only three days time to deposit the amount, which was not accepted. In fact, he was ready with the required amount by 2nd May 2016. In support of his submission, the petitioner has also filed the photocopy of the three numbers of bank drafts dated 30.04.2016 and 02.05.2016 amounting to Rs.9,42,225/-, drawn in favour of the Corporation and payable at Bhubaneswar, as at Annexures-3, 5 and 6. Hence, he contended that the action of the opposite parties is arbitrary and unreasonable and the same should be struck down. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Corporation, relying upon the counter affidavit filed, submitted that the bids were opened on 26.03.2016 at 11.30 AM in presence of all the bidders. Thus, the result of the bid was made known to the petitioner on 26.03.2016. Further, it has the responsibility of the petitioner to ascertain the details of payment on line, in terms of Clause-14 of the tender call notice, which is reproduced hereunder: “14. The bidders, whose bid will be accepted shall be intimated either through Postal/FAX/E.Mail Notice Board and also the result of the bid will be available in the web site at https://tendersodisha.gov.in. Hence the bidders are required to furnish their full address, Telephone No., Fax No., and e-Mail etc. in the bid document in online. As such it is the bidders’ responsibility to ascertain in online.” (emphasis supplied) Further, referring to Clasue-15 the tender call notice, learned counsel submitted that the successful bidder would be required to deposit the required amount within the stipulated date. in the bid document in online. As such it is the bidders’ responsibility to ascertain in online.” (emphasis supplied) Further, referring to Clasue-15 the tender call notice, learned counsel submitted that the successful bidder would be required to deposit the required amount within the stipulated date. Admittedly, the petitioner had not deposited the amount detailed under Annexure-2 within the stipulated date, i.e., 29.04.2016, which was intimated to him vide Annexure-2. Hence, his bid was cancelled and the EMD was forfeited vide letter dated 04.05.2016. According to him, when the petitioner was at fault in not depositing the amount within the stipulated time, he is not entitled to a relief of equity and his writ is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 7. The petitioner being the successful bidder was communicated vide letter dated 22.04.2016 to deposit an amount of Rs.9,42,225/-. Admittedly, the said letter was sent to the petitioner vide speed post on 25.04.2016 and received by him on 28.04.2016, as is apparent from Annexure-9. The opposite party-Corporation does not also dispute the same. Pursuant to the letter under Annexure 2, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount by 29.04.2016, which implies that he was allowed a reasonable period of seven days to deposit the amount. However, the petitioner received the same on 28.04.2016, i.e., a date before the time stipulated in letter dated 22.04.2016. Annexures-3, 5 and 6 are the photocopies of the drafts amounting to Rs.9,42,225/-, which were purchased/drawn on 30.04.2016 and 02.05.2016 respectively in favour of the Corporation. Although learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner had never produced those drafts either before opposite party No.2 or before opposite party No.3 at any point of time, he could not satisfactorily answer as to why the petitioner would withhold the drafts purchased in the name of the Corporation, which was detriment to his interest. The drafts purchased on 30.04.2016 and 02.04.2016, were drawn/purchased well within seven days of receipt of the letter by the petitioner. Thus, in all fairness, the opposite party-Corporation ought to have executed the agreement with the petitioner, who was the successful bidder. The drafts purchased on 30.04.2016 and 02.04.2016, were drawn/purchased well within seven days of receipt of the letter by the petitioner. Thus, in all fairness, the opposite party-Corporation ought to have executed the agreement with the petitioner, who was the successful bidder. Thus, the action of the opposite party-Corporation in forfeiting the EMD amount of the petitioner is not sustainable. Accordingly, the letter dated 04.05.2016, under Annexure-8, deserves to be quashed. 8. Bid information attached to the tender document at Sl. No.7 provides as follows: 7 Intended completion period/Time period assigned for Completion One year from the effective date of Agreement. Thus, the agreement will be valid for a period of one year from the date of its execution. We, therefore, while quashing Annexure-8, direct that in case the petitioner deposits the required amount of Rs.9,42,225/-within one week from the date of issuance of certified copy of this order, with the opposite parties, he will be entitled to the benefit of the order dated 22.04.2016, meaning thereby, the petitioner shall be entitled for grant of contract in terms of letter dated 22.04.2016, to be completed within one year from the date of execution of the agreement, which shall be executed as early as possible after deposit is made. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.