JUDGMENT : This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.2017 as passed in W.P. No. 9365/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has disapproved the action of the respondent to forfeit an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs, which was deposited as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for participating in e-auction. 2. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, has directed the present appellants to refund the said EMD of Rs.6.00 lakhs to the present respondent latest within six weeks from the date of the order. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the respondent participated in a tender process floated by the appellants and remitted the EMD of Rs.6.00 lakhs. The respondent had been the successful bidder in respect of the wheat that was stocked in Chitradurga Depot. As per Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the tender document, the respondent was required to deposit the balance amount within seven days. The respondent though deposited the amount within seven days, but, in three installments. While finding fault in the fact that the amount was deposited in three installments and not in maximum permissible two installments, the appellants proceeded to forfeit the said amount of EMD of Rs.6.00 lakhs. 4. While accepting the challenge to such an action, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of appellants and observed that the reading of Clause 10 in its entirety clearly made out that the time for payment of balance amount was an outer limit of seven days, and payment made in as number of installments was immaterial as long as the same was paid within the period of seven days. The learned Single Judge also clarified that the payment in two installments was a stipulation applicable only if payment was sought to be made during the period of extension beyond the initial period of seven days, as provided for in Clause 10 of the Notification in question. 5. Thus, the learned Single Judge held that the payment in the present case in three installments was within the original stipulated period of seven days and was not in violation of Clause 10 A(ii) of the Notification. 6. 5. Thus, the learned Single Judge held that the payment in the present case in three installments was within the original stipulated period of seven days and was not in violation of Clause 10 A(ii) of the Notification. 6. The said order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the appellants reiterating the contentions regarding their right to forfeit the amount and while contending that Clause 10 A(ii) of the tender condition was clear that the buyer could deposit the amount within a maximum of two installments. It is also argued that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the restriction in the number of installments would be applicable only for the period of extended time of seven days granted beyond the normal time for payment amounts to a misinterpretation of the applicable terms. No other contention has been advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. We may take note of the stipulation as contained in the referred Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the tender process in question as under:- “10. PAYMENT OF COST & DELIVERY SCHEDULE: A.(i) Price of wheat shall be payable on the net weight basis. All taxes, levies, fees, charges etc. of any nature whatsoever leviable by any authority in respect of the sale of wheat through e-auction shall be payable by the buyer in addition to the sale price of Wheat. (ii) The EMD furnished by the successful bidders shall be adjusted towards the cost of stocks and applicable taxes. The successful bidder(s) shall deposit remaining cost of the stocks along with applicable taxes within seven (7) working days from the next date of issue of the acceptance letter in FCI bank Account No.33618868790 (IFSC Code: SBIN0012705) through electronic mode. In case, the allotted quantity is equal to or more than 2000 MT, on the request of buyer, FCI may allow extension in period of deposit of cost of stocks and applicable taxes for a maximum period of another 7 working days. However, penal interest of 2% over and above the Bank rate at which the FCI is borrowing would be charged, i.e., 10.01% + 2% = 12.01% upto date of deposit of cost beyond free period free period of 7 working days. The buyer can deposit the cost within the above period in maximum 2(two) instalments. However, penal interest of 2% over and above the Bank rate at which the FCI is borrowing would be charged, i.e., 10.01% + 2% = 12.01% upto date of deposit of cost beyond free period free period of 7 working days. The buyer can deposit the cost within the above period in maximum 2(two) instalments. Release order can be downloaded by the bidder only after deposition of full cost along with applicable taxes and no part Release Order shall be issued. In case of Inter-State sale, the buyers have to opt for one out of two options i.e. with ‘C’ form and ‘without ‘C’ form’. For the purpose of depositing the cost of stocks/lifting of stocks, the day of communication of acceptance shall not be counted. (iii) In case the successful bidder fails to deposit the balance cost along with applicable taxes & levies within the stipulated time, his bid is liable to be cancelled and the EMD furnished will be forfeited. No extension of time will be granted for deposit of Cost at any circumstance.” 8. A bare look at the said Clause 10 makes it clear that the stipulation had been for the successful bidder depositing the remaining cost of stock along with applicable taxes within seven days from the next date of issuance of acceptance letter; and this stipulation in the principal part of sub-clause (ii) of Clause 10A does not refer to the number of installments by which the payment could be made. It is only if the period for payment of balance amount is extended beyond the initial period of seven days that the payment is required to be made in two installments. In the present case, the payments were made within the initial period of seven days and no extension of time was sought. 9. In the aforesaid factual position, we are unable to find any error or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge holding that forfeiture of EMD in the present case was not justified. 10. In view of the above, we find no case for interference in appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 12. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.