ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to NIT issued by the Indore Development Authority (Annexure P-1). 2. The facts of the case reveal that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 24.10.2011 No.207 in respect of ten plots in scheme No.54, PU-IV, Commercial area and the petitioner submitted his tender along with earnest money of Rs.2 lacs for plot No.223 and has also deposited a sum of Rs.1,37,70,648/-. The petitioner was the highest bidder and a reservation was made in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 9.1.2012. 3. The undisputed facts also reveal that the petitioner was not able to deposit the entire premium in time and therefore, the petitioner has filed a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.10269/2012 with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent Indore Development Authority to grant extension of time to pay the remaining amount. 4. This Court after hearing the parties at length has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present petitioner and has observed that as the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount as per the prescribed time schedule, the question of granting him further time does not arise. 5. Eventually as stated earlier, allotment of plot was cancelled and the petitioner’s contention is that as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, he is entitled for refund of amount and Indore Development Authority is entitled to deduct only 5% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. 6. A detailed return has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondents is that after cancelling the allotment of the petitioner in respect of the plot in question, they have forwarded a cheque of Rs.16,21,331/- to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has written a letter to the Estate Officer on 25.3.2014 to issue a fresh cheque as the validity of the said cheque has already come to an end. 7. He has also argued that the petitioner has not disputed the refund amount while writing letter dated 25.3.2014 and, therefore, the question of refunding the amount does not arise. 7. He has also argued that the petitioner has not disputed the refund amount while writing letter dated 25.3.2014 and, therefore, the question of refunding the amount does not arise. It has also been argued by learned counsel for Indore Development Authority that as per the resolution of the Indore Development Authority dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P-13, page No.46), the Indore Development Authority is entitled to deduct 50% of the total amount deposited by an allottee. He has also argued that there is an alternative remedy of filing of a civil suit available to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This is the second visit of the petitioner before this Court. In the first round of litigation, this Court has not granted any relief to the petitioner and has upheld the action of the Indore Development Authority in cancelling the allotment which was done in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot in question. 9. This Court has carefully gone through the earlier judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10269/2012 on 13.11.2013. Paragraphs No.2 to 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “2. The contention of the petitioner is that a notice inviting tender was issued on 24.10.2011 in respect of 10 commercial plots situated at Scheme No.54, PU-IV Commercial, by the Indore Development Authority and the petitioner has submitted his tender in respect of Plot No.223. The petitioner has further stated that he was the highest bidder and a reservation letter was issued by the Indore Development Authority on 9.1.2012. The petitioner has further stated that as per the reservation letter dated 9.1.2012, he was required to deposit 25% cost of the plot on or before 7.2.2012 amounting to Rs.32,42,662/- and the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to grant some additional time to deposit the amount keeping in view the Regulation 23 framed by the Indore Development Authority. The petitioner has further stated that the extension of time was granted and a sum of Rs.20 lacs was paid on 7.3.2012 and Rs.12,99,235/- was deposited on 7.4.2012. The petitioner has further stated that the extension of time was granted and a sum of Rs.20 lacs was paid on 7.3.2012 and Rs.12,99,235/- was deposited on 7.4.2012. The petitioner has further stated that a resolution was passed by the Indore Development Authority on 19.8.2003, which provided for grant of extension of time to deposit the installments by charging interest and as the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of resolution dated 19.8.2003 for making the payment of subsequent installments, he submitted an application on 7.5.2012 requesting the authorities for grant of time to deposit the balance 25% of the premium. The petitioner has further stated that no time was granted to the petitioner and to his utter surprise, impugned order dated 17.10.2012 has been passed cancelling the allotment and an amount of Rs.16,21,331/- has been refunded to the petitioner after deducting certain amounts. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have erred in law and in facts in not considering the petitioner’s representation and not granting the benefit of resolution dated 19.8.2003 by extending time to deposit the installments. It has also been argued that the order dated 17.10.2012 is violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and also violative to the principles of natural justice and fair play. 3. On the other hand a detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed on behalf of Indore Development Authority and it has been admitted that the petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of Plot No.223, which is a subject matter of the present writ petition. It has been further stated that the petitioner was required to deposit the first 25% of the premium within a period of 30 days from the date of acceptance of the letter i.e. on or before 7.2.2012. The second 25% of the premium as per the terms and conditions of the contract was payable within 90 days i.e. on or before 7.5.2012. It has been further stated that rest of the 50% amount was payable in quarterly installments of 3, 5 or 10 years with applicable interest. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has failed to deposit 25% amount within 30 days and sought extension of time. It has been further stated that rest of the 50% amount was payable in quarterly installments of 3, 5 or 10 years with applicable interest. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has failed to deposit 25% amount within 30 days and sought extension of time. He was granted extension and in spite of grant of extension he has deposited only a sum of Rs.20 lacs on 7.3.2012 and again sought extension of 30 days’ time for paying balance amount of Rs.12,42,662/-. The extension was granted to him up to 7.4.2012. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was required to deposit the second installment of 25% amount on or before 7.5.2012 and the petitioner did not deposit the same, he on the contrary demanded conversion of the same into a loan payable in 10 years. The respondents have further stated that keeping in view the terms and conditions of the tender document, which were accepted by the petitioner, as no extension was permissible and they were left with no other choice except to cancel the allotment. The respondents have also stated that the so called resolution of Indore Development Authority dated 19.8.2003 is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner and it is applicable only in those cases, where the initial payment is of 50% of the total lease premium amount. It has been clarified that in case of the petitioner, initial payment is of 25% of the total lease premium and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given further benefit of extension of time, which has already been granted to him. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a tender notice (NIT) was issued in respect of Plot No.223, situated at Scheme No.54, PU-IV, Indore on 24.10.2011. The NIT was for a plot ad-measuring 162 square meter and the aggregate value of the plot as per the offer was Rs.1,37,70,648/-. The letter of reservation was issued on 9.1.2012 to the petitioner and as per the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount detailed as under :- “(i) First 25 % of premium of Rs.34,42,662/- within a period of 30 days from the date of acceptance of offer letter. The letter of reservation was issued on 9.1.2012 to the petitioner and as per the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount detailed as under :- “(i) First 25 % of premium of Rs.34,42,662/- within a period of 30 days from the date of acceptance of offer letter. Thus, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.32,42,662/- after adjustment of earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 7.2.2012. (ii) Second 25% of the premium amount Rs. 34,42,662/- was payable within 90 days after due date of first installment on or before 7.5.2012. (iii) Rest 50% amount Rs. 68,85,324/- was payable in quarterly installments in 3,5 or 10 years with appreciable interest.” 6. The petitioner did not deposit the 25% of the premium within 30 days and requested the authorities to grant him time vide letter dated 2.3.2012. Time was granted to the petitioner and the amount which was due and payable on 7.2.2012 was again not deposited within time and only a sum of Rs.20 lacs was deposited by the petitioner on 7.3.2012 against the first installment of Rs.32,42,662/-. The petitioner sought extension of 30 days’ time for paying balance amount along with the interest and he was granted time up to 7.4.2012. The petitioner has deposited balance amount Rs.12,42,662/- on 7.4.2012. The petitioner was under a contractual obligation to deposit the second installment of 25% amounting to Rs.34,42,662/- on or before 7.5.2012, however instead of depositing the amount he requested for conversion of the same into a loan payable in 10 years. The petitioner has deposited balance amount Rs.12,42,662/- on 7.4.2012. The petitioner was under a contractual obligation to deposit the second installment of 25% amounting to Rs.34,42,662/- on or before 7.5.2012, however instead of depositing the amount he requested for conversion of the same into a loan payable in 10 years. The terms and conditions of the NIT No.207 dated 24.10.2011 dealing with the payment of premium amount in installments reads as under :- ^^Hkw[k.M+ dh izhfe;e dh jkf'k 25 izfr'kr jkf'k vkj{k.ki= tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls 30 fnu esa tek djkus rFkk f}rh; 25 izfRk'kr jkf'k vkxkeh 3 ekg esa rFkk 'ks"k 50 izfr'kr jkf'k 3 o"kZ esa 10 izfr'kr C;kt ds lkFk] 5 o"kZ esa 10-25 izfr'kr C;kt ds lkFk rFkk 10 o"kZ esa 10-50 izfr'kr C;kt ds lkFk =Sekfld fd'rksa esa Hkqxrku djus dh lqfo/kk jgsaxhA^^ Similarly, other relevant Clause i.e. Clause-8 of the tender document reads as under :- ^^8- fufonk Lohd`fr nj vuqlkj izhfe;e dh 25 izfr'kr jde /kjksgj jde lafgr] fufonk Lohd`fr dk ekax i= tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls 30 fnu esa tek djuk gksxh rFkk 25 izfr'kr jkf'k 3 ekg esa tek djuk gksxhA fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa jkf'k tek gksus ds ckn gh fof/kor~ vkcaVu tkjh fd;k tk,xk ,oa izFke o"kZ dk vfxze yht jasaV ,oa izkf/kdkjh }kjk 'krksaZ dks lekfo"V djrs gq, izk:i :i;s 100 ds uku&tqfMf'k;y LVkEi ij bdjkjukek fufonk Lohd`fr dh lwpuk tkjh gksus ds fnukad 20 fnu esa] ;fn fofu;e ds vUnj le; o`f) ugha nh xbZ gks rks tek djuk gksxhA vU;Fkk /kjksgj dh jkf'k jktlkr gks tk,xhA izhfe;e dh 'ks"k fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa 10 izfr'kr] 10-25 izfr'kr] 10-50 izfr'kr C;kt vk/kkj ij 3] 5] 10 o"kZ ds =Sekfld fd'rksa es tek djuk gksxhA^^ The petitioner has certainly violated the terms and conditions as prescribed in the tender documents and as per the reservation letter, the respondents have therefore, rightly cancelled the allotment. The petitioner with open eyes has accepted the terms and conditions of the NIT and the reservation letter, and on account of unconditional acceptance of the petitioner in respect of terms and conditions of the NIT, tender documents and tender acceptance letter specially keeping in view the payment terms and payment scheduled, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly cancelled the allotment in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Not only this, rule 42 of the Regulation for Disposal 1987 reads as under :- “42. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the ransfer of property as provided in these regulations any special terms and conditions imposed through any advertisement for transfer of property will be applicable to the property covered by such advertisement.” 7. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that the transfer of property is covered with the terms and conditions as provided under the Regulation and as mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, the petitioner has certainly violated the terms and conditions as reflected in the NIT as well as reflected in the allotment letter and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever of any kind. So far as the question of grant of further time keeping in view the resolution dated 19.8.2003 is concerned, the petitioner again is not entitled for any benefit. The aforesaid resolution reads as under :- ^^fo"k; Øekad & 15 izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkacfVr fd, tkus okys Hkw[akM+ks gsrq tek dh tkus okyh izkjafHkd jkf'k 50 izfr'kr ds LFkku ij 25 izfr'kr fd, tkus gsrq uhfrxr fu.kZ; ysus fo/ks;dA ladYi Øekad 315 fnukad 19-4-2003 fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa tgkW izkjafHkd jkf'k 30 izfRk'kr tek dh tkuk gks vkSj vkosnu@vacfVrh mlesa ls 52 izfr'kr jkf'k gh tek djkuk pkgrk gks] rks mlls 0-50 izfr'kr 'kqYd fy;k tkdj 'ks"k jkf'k] +_.k ds :Ik esa ekU; dj Hkw[kaM+ vkcafVr dj fn;k tk,A gLrk@& lnL; lfpo] bankSjk fodkl izkf/kdkjh] bankSj dk;kZy;] bnkSj fodkl izkf/kdkjh] bankSj 7] jsldkslZ jksM+] bankSj fnukad@28-8-2003 Øekad@laink@2003@---- fnukad@28-8-2003 vkns'k mijksDr ladYi dh izfr leLr laink vf/koxZ&2] leLr ;kstuk fyfid dh vksj lwupkFkZ rFkk ikyukFkZA vkosnu ds izdj.kksa esa mDr ladYi vuqlkj vxzsŸkj dk;Zokgh dh tk,A laink vf/kdkjh] bankSj] fodkl izkf/kdj.k] bnkSj The resolution itself makes it very clear that it is applicable in those cases, where the preliminary amount/first installment is 50% of the total value of the plot. The petitioner has also given an example of CMM Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of CMM Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. the initial payment was of 50% of the lease premium payable and therefore it can never be said that the petitioner and CMM Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd are similarly situated persons. The petitioner has also given an example of CMM Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of CMM Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. the initial payment was of 50% of the lease premium payable and therefore it can never be said that the petitioner and CMM Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd are similarly situated persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provisions of law, regulation and resolution in the matter and therefore, as the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount as per the prescribed time schedule, even thought he was granted extension of time to deposit the amount by the Indore Development Authority, is not entitled for any relief whatsoever of any kind, hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.” 10. The Division Bench of this Court at no point of time has considered the resolution passed by Indore Development Authority on 9.6.2009. The sole question before this Court is whether the resolution passed by the Indore Development Authority is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not. This Court has also carefully gone through the terms and conditions of the NIT, Clause-18 of Annexure P-1, Page No.14 of the NIT reads as under :- ^^18- dCtk feyus ds ckn ;fn yhtx`fgrk }kjk vkcaVu fujLr djus gsrq vkosnu djus ij vFkok mlds }kjk 'krksZ dk ikyu us djus ls vkoaVu fujLr gksus ij Hkw[kaM+ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr ns; izhfe;e ij 5 izfr'kr vFkok /kjksgj dh jkf'k ¼tks Hkh vf/kd gks½ dkV dj 'ks"k jkf'k okil dh tk,xhA tht ds le{k tek dh xbZ vfxze vFkok vU; jkf'k fdlh lwjr esa okil ugha dh tk,xhA Hkw[kaM+ dk iw.kZ izhfe;e tek gksus ds i'pkr~ jkf'k okil ugha gksxhA^^ 11. The terms and conditions of the NIT are nothing but an offer by the Indore Development Authority which was accepted by the petitioner by submitting tender and in the process of acceptance, the petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the tender document. There was no such condition of deduction of 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. In the aforesaid terms and conditions, once Clause 18 is in existence it is binding upon the petitioner and the same is also binding upon the respondents. 12. There was no such condition of deduction of 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. In the aforesaid terms and conditions, once Clause 18 is in existence it is binding upon the petitioner and the same is also binding upon the respondents. 12. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the Indore Development Authority is not justified on the basis of subsequent resolution, ignoring Clause 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed. Indore Development Authority is directed to refund the amount, after deducting 5% as reflected in Clause 18, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that if the amount is not refunded within a period of 60 days, it shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount is deposited, till the amount is paid to the petitioner. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed.