JUDGMENT Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is primarily for getting a refund of the earnest money deposited by a bidder in respect of a tender where he participated. The affidavits have been completed and it appears from the same that the basic facts are not in dispute, for which the money claim has been made. In fact that is why, instead of throwing out the writ petition at the threshold, I have chosen to hear it on merits. 2. The construction of underground drainage system on P.C connector from Gobindo Khatick Road to I.T.C Sonar Bangla was tendered time and again but for one reason or the other, each notice inviting tender was ultimately cancelled. The petitioner participated in each of these tenders. Ultimately the tender was again floated on August 16, 2016. The present petitioner submitted his bid on September 8, 2016, which was also the last date of submission of the financial bid. The technical bid was opened on September 13, 2016 and the financial bid was opened on October 20, 2016. 3. Clause 13 of the notice inviting tender is as follows: - "Bid shall remain valid for a period not less than 120 (one hundred) days from the last date of submission of Financial Bid/Sealed Bid. If the bidder withdraws the bid during the validity period of bid, the earnest money as deposited will be forfeited forthwith without assigning any reason thereof. 4. 120 days from the last date of submission of the financial/sealed bid expired on January 6, 2017. The petitioner deposited the earnest money on Rs. 11,99,536 according to the terms and conditions of the tender. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was asked by the respondents to extend the period of validity of the bid by a further period of 4 months and the petitioners wrote a letter dated November 28, 2016 extending the period of validity of the bid by a further period of 4 months. 5. Simple calculation will show that 4 months from January 6, 2017 would expire on May 6, 2017 but the petitioner contended that the extended period of validity expired on January 9, 2017 which does not appear to be correct in the facts of case. 5. Simple calculation will show that 4 months from January 6, 2017 would expire on May 6, 2017 but the petitioner contended that the extended period of validity expired on January 9, 2017 which does not appear to be correct in the facts of case. Be that as it may, since no work order was issued by the respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner asked for refund of the earnest money. The refund was sought by the petitioner before May 6, 2017. Nothing was communicated to the petitioner about the fate of the earnest money. The writ petition was moved seeking refund in a situation where writ petitioner made out a case that respondent was withholding an earnest money deposit. It is the case of the respondent as made out in its affidavit-in-opposition more particularly at paragraph 8 that the petitioner withdrew itself from the tender during the period of validity of its rates and/or the extended period. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was asking for refund of the earnest money deposited within the period of validity of the bid as extended. This clearly shows the intention of the petitioner not to persist or proceed with the tender. Accordingly, the respondent corporation treated the bid made by the petitioner as having been wrongfully withdrawn and forfeited the earnest money for the petitioner. 6. Clause 13 quoted above is a clause of the tender incorporating a forfeiture clause. The petitioner with its eyes wide open participated in the tender, accepted that the bid shall remain valid for a period of 120 days from the last date of submission of the financial bid, which worked out to January 6, 2016, and then, at the instance of the respondent, extended the period of validity of the bid by a further four months, id est, to May 6, 2016; it knew full well, and/or is presumed to have known, the text of Clause 13 aforesaid, under which it is clear that if the bidder withdraws the bid during its validity period, then the earnest money as deposited shall not be refunded in terms of Clause 20, but forfeited. This is a condition of the notice inviting tender which binds the petitioner the moment that it participates in the bidding and therefore, if it demands a refund of the earnest money within the period of validity of the bid, it is a withdrawal from the bid by necessary implication. The consequence of forfeiture, from the language of the clause, follows immediately and automatically. 7. I do not, therefore, find any reason why the writ Court will aid the petitioner in getting a refund of the earnest money deposited in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention that the respondent corporation is wrongfully withholding the earnest money deposit is, on the face of the records, and the notice inviting tender and its terms and conditions, not tenable. Rather, it is the petitioner who has acted wrongfully in seeking to withdraw the bid by demanding refund of the earnest money deposited during the extended period of validity of the said bid on the basis of a patently erroneous calculation as to when 120 days from January 6, 2017 would expire. 8. I find no unreasonableness in the stand of the respondent authorities and I also find no irregularity in the forfeiture of the earnest money which appears to have been done lawfully according to a specific clause of the Notice Inviting Tender. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Before parting with this case I must express my gratitude to the Registry and the staff who have made it possible for electronic dissemination of this judgment because despite the judgment having been prepared long back due to the pandemic and its consequent fall out until their technical expertise had been brought to bear on the system of virtual courts presently obtaining, the judgment could not be delivered.