ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 02.12.2014, passed by the respondent-RIICO, whereby the respondents have forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner, the latter has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:- “That by way an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 02.12.2014 may kindly be declared as illegal and be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents may kindly be directed to release the amount of earnest money amounting to Rs. 6,60,000/-(Six lakh sixty thousand rupees) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of 03.09.2014.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 15.08.2014, the respondent-RIICO issued an advertisement for the auction of commercial plots situated in various areas of Jaipur, including the plot in question located at Bassi (Extension) in Jaipur. By way of the said advertisement, closed/sealed bids were invited by the respondent-RIICO. The minimum reserved/proposed price for the aforementioned plot was fixed at Rs. 5,500/-per square meter. It is pertinent to note that as per the terms and conditions of the said advertisement, security/earnest money to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/-was to be deposited by the bidders alongside their bid/application. Accordingly, as per the said terms and conditions, the petitioner duly participated in the auction proceedings and submitted his bid/application alongside a Demand Draft for the earnest money as required to be submitted. It was stated that the petitioner quoted the bid price at Rs. 6,101/- per square meter, whereas, the minimum reserve price was Rs. 5,500/-per square meters. After the auction proceedings were conducted and concluded on 03.09.2014, the petitioner remained the single and highest bidder. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the respondent-RIICO, upon approval of the bid(s) so received, was to compulsorily send a communication to the successful highest bidder for the latter to deposit 25% amount of the total sale consideration, within 15 days from the date of intimation, with the respondent-RIICO. Otherwise, upon their failure to do so, the amount deposited earlier on account of the earnest money, would stand forfeited by the corporation without any notice to the said bidder. Otherwise, upon their failure to do so, the amount deposited earlier on account of the earnest money, would stand forfeited by the corporation without any notice to the said bidder. Accordingly, it was submitted that in the present case, the respondent-RIICO dispatched the letter of acceptance qua the petitioner’s bid dated 11.11.2014, only on 19.11.2014, thereby intimating the petitioner of his successful bid and its acceptance by the corporation along with a direction to the latter to deposit the 25% amount of sale consideration within a period of 15 days. However, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that much to the dismay of the petitioner, he received the said letter only on 22.11.2014 and as a result, even before the expiration of the 15 days provided for effectuating the payment of 25% of the total amount of sale consideration, the respondent-RIICO vide impugned order dated 02.12.2014, forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner, totaling Rs. 6,60,000/-. 4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the letter dated 11.11.2014, by way of which the respondent-corporation informed the petitioner of their successful bid and thereby, raised a demand of Rs.31,47,024/-, was dispatched by the corporation only on 19.11.2014. Thereafter, the said letter was received by the petitioner on 22.11.2014. Therefore, in spite of the terms and conditions encapsulated under the advertisement dated 15.08.2014 whereby time of 15 days is granted (from the date of intimation) to the successful bidder to deposit 25% amount of the sale consideration, the earnest money so deposited was forfeited by the respondent-corporation prematurely, without actually providing the mandated period of 15 days from the date of intimation i.e. 22.11.2014. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that after acquiring knowledge of certain malafides on part of the respondent-RIICO regarding the fair and just allotment of the plot in question, the petitioner submitted an application before the corporation whereby it was categorically stated that despite quoting the highest bid, the petitioner was not interested in purchasing the said plot. Consequently, before the petitioners bid could be approved/accepted i.e. 11.11.2014, the petitioner prayed for the cancellation of his bid by way a retraction letter dated 10.09.2014. Consequently, before the petitioners bid could be approved/accepted i.e. 11.11.2014, the petitioner prayed for the cancellation of his bid by way a retraction letter dated 10.09.2014. Hence, as the cancellation/retraction letter qua the bid so submitted was deposited before the bid was actually accepted by the respondent-RIICO, the impugned order dated 02.12.2014 itself becomes premature and therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside. In order to strength their case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court titled Vishal Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in ILR 1977 Delhi 724. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant writ petition. It was submitted that the petitioner has admittedly accepted the offer of the respondent-RIICO given by way of tender notice dated 15.08.2014 i.e. advertisement and the subsequent bid was further accepted by the respondent-RIICO, thereby creating a valid contract between the two parties. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner, by not depositing the due amount of sale consideration, failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract so entered into, which were consented to in the bid document so submitted on 03.09.2014. Hence, the petitioner himself is guilty of breach of contract and thus, accordingly, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It was further elaborated that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent-RIICO of their own free will, after having considered the relevant documents and stipulations such as the terms and conditions provided in the advertisement, the reserve price proposed for the plot in question and deposition of earnest money as a security to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/- amongst the other stipulations, which categorically did not provide for retraction of the bid so put forth by the bidders (herein, petitioner). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-RIICO further submitted that the respondent-corporation by way of valid communication, informed the petitioner about the acceptance of the latter’s bid at Rs. 6101/-per sq. meter, thereby completing the requirements of a valid contract. Thereafter, if any breach occured with respect to the said contract, then the aggrieved party shall duly be entitled to the civil remedy of damages. 6101/-per sq. meter, thereby completing the requirements of a valid contract. Thereafter, if any breach occured with respect to the said contract, then the aggrieved party shall duly be entitled to the civil remedy of damages. Moreover, considering the fact that the petitioner being the single highest bidder and after having already deposited earnest money to the tune of Rs.6,60,000/-as well, was liable to deposit 25% of the sale consideration within a period of 15 days, failing which, the amount so deposited earlier, could be forfeited without giving any further notice to the petitioner. The said condition was also accepted by the petitioner in their bid document dated 03.09.2014. Therefore, after duly considering the fact and circumstances of the case, learned counsel submitted that as the petitioner failed to deposit the said 25% amount of sale consideration as per the terms and conditions, the respondent-RIICO had no option but to cancel the bid of the petitioner and to forfeit the earnest money as per the terms and conditions of the bid. 8. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the conduct and behavior of the petitioner reflected unwillingness and deliberate evasion on his part in submitting the part of the sale consideration, as is corroborated by the fact that even if it is assumed that the letter dated 11.11.2014, informing the petitioner of their bid being successful, was received by the petitioner at a belated stage, then also there was no attempt by the petitioner to submit the said amount. Nor was there any communication/representation on behalf of the petitioner seeking extension of the time period so lapsed on account of the delay. Furthermore, the petitioner never contested the said delay accrued in receiving the letter dated 11.11.2014, which in consonance with other factors, such as the non-deposition of the sale consideration, at any stage, even after the same having come to the petitioner’s knowledge, solely reflects that it was never the intention of the petitioner to deposit the said 25% amount of the sale consideration. Hence, the respondent-RIICO had no option but to exercise their right to cancel the said bid submitted by the petitioner and forfeit the amount deposited on account of the earnest money. Hence, the respondent-RIICO had no option but to exercise their right to cancel the said bid submitted by the petitioner and forfeit the amount deposited on account of the earnest money. Lastly, it was submitted that no valid reason was incorporated by the petitioner in the retraction letter submitted by him and hence, reflecting poor conduct on part of the petitioner in not wishing to honour the stipulations of the contract so entered into with the respondent-RIICO. Hence, relying upon the submissions made herein-above, it was prayed by learned counsel for the respondent-RIICO for the dismissal of the instant writ petition. 9. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the instant petition and perused the judgment(s) cited at Bar. 10. At the outset, it is pertinent to map out the factual matrix giving rise to the present dispute, whereby certain germane considerations, which are duly admitted by both the sides, provide clarity on the question(s) of illegality and arbitrariness to be determined by this Court. Thus, the relevant facts, which are duly admitted and are necessary for the just and efficacious adjudication of the present dispute are as follows:- (i) That on 15.08.2014, the respondent-RIICO issued an advertisement for the auction of commercial plots situated in various areas of Jaipur, including the plot in question located at Bassi in District Jaipur. (ii) That in the said advertisement, the relevant stipulations for a successful allotment; such as the reserve price for the plot, terms and conditions of the auction proceedings including those pertaining to the offer and its acceptance, the requirement of the earnest money to be deposited as well as the terms and conditions of payments i.e. deposition of 25% of the sale consideration within the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of intimation etc, were all duly and categorically incorporated. (iii) That the petitioner duly satisfied the terms and conditions of the auction proceedings insofar as he submitted his bid/application alongside a Demand Draft for the earnest money as required to be submitted. In this regard, it would be prudent to note that the crux of the present dispute arose only after the petitioner was declared as the single and highest bidder, pursuant to which he was intimated of the acceptance of his bid. In this regard, it would be prudent to note that the crux of the present dispute arose only after the petitioner was declared as the single and highest bidder, pursuant to which he was intimated of the acceptance of his bid. However, despite the same, he categorically and admittedly did not submit the due amount, as per the agreed upon terms and conditions, which required the petitioner to deposit 25% of the sale consideration within a period of 15 days from the date of intimation of their bid by the respondent-RIICO. (iv) That as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement issued on 15.08.2014, the respondent-RIICO was well within their rights to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the petitioner, in an event, where the latter failed to comply with the requirement to submit one quarter of the total sale consideration within the aforesaid period of 15 days. 11. Having perused the relevant facts of the present matter, it is unequivocally descried that the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings with open eyes and after having duly perused the terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement so issued by the respondent-RIICO, participated in the auction proceedings. Parallelly, whilst the petitioner voluntarily participated in the said auction proceedings with full conviction, no objection was ever raised by him regarding the terms and conditions spelled out by the respondent-corporation. The said fact is also supported and corroborated by the bid document so submitted by the petitioner on 03.09.2014. Therefore, without any iota of doubt, it can be discerned that the petitioner’s participation in the auction proceedings without initially raising any protest in relation to its terms and conditions, implied deemed acceptance of the said terms and conditions, in totality. Hence, by virtue of the said acceptance sealed by the deposition of the petitioner’s bid and its corresponding acceptance, the petitioner was duly bound by the terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement issued by the respondent-RIICO. Furthermore, in categoric compliance of those very same conditions imposed by the respondents, the petitioner also deposited the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/-. Furthermore, in categoric compliance of those very same conditions imposed by the respondents, the petitioner also deposited the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/-. Hence, it was only after the petitioner failed to comply, in totality with the terms and conditions, as imposed by the respondents, that he raised a challenge to the very same stipulations of the advertisement, by urging the latter for the return of the earnest money as deposited by him along with his bid/application. In this regard, it is of interest to note that it was only upon the petitioner’s admitted failure to deposit the 25% amount of sale consideration, that he prayed for the retraction of his bid, vide retraction letter dated 10.09.2014, after the same had duly been accepted by the respondent-RIICO. 12. Moreover, in the retraction letter so submitted by the petitioner, no cogent or valid reasons were incorporated warranting the petitioner’s case to be fit for withdrawal i.e. no specific malafides were alleged against the respondent-RIICO or any of its erring officer(s) by way of the said retraction letter. Rather, only a general call for retraction, based on only assumed and unsubstantiated proclamations was made, without getting into the specific(s) of any malafides inflicted upon the petitioner. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that upon an analysis of the terms and conditions of the tender notice/advertisement, it is very clear that the said stipulations did not permit retraction of bids or any incidental action thereto, by the bidders participating in the auction proceedings. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the fact that the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings with open eyes and had duly deposited his bid along with the earnest money and that his bid was correspondingly declared as successful and thereby accepted; a valid contract was entered into between the parties. Thus, looking to the breach of the terms and conditions of the contract so entered into, the respondent-RIICO was well within their contracted rights to forfeit the earnest money submitted by the petitioner. 13. Following from the observations made herein-above, it is necessary to note that the only escape from fulfilling and honouring the contract subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent-RIICO, was for the former to not deposit the amount of sale consideration with the latter, at the cost of forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by him. 13. Following from the observations made herein-above, it is necessary to note that the only escape from fulfilling and honouring the contract subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent-RIICO, was for the former to not deposit the amount of sale consideration with the latter, at the cost of forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by him. However, in the present case, the petitioner by way of the retraction letter and the challenge raised herein, has disputed the very act of forfeiture of the earnest money by the respondent-RIICO. Therefore, to make his case for the return of the earnest money as deposited, the petitioner has resorted to the defense of delay and laches, on part of the respondent-RIICO, in dispatching the acceptance letter of the petitioner’s bid, pursuant to the receival of which, the petitioner was required to deposit the 25% amount of the total sale consideration. 14. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the letter of acceptance of the petitioner’s bid dated 11.11.2014 was only dispatched by the respondent-RIICO on 19.11.2014. Thereafter, the said letter was received by the petitioner on 22.11.2014. Hence, without actually providing the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of intimation of the said acceptance, the respondent-RIICO vide impugned order dated 02.12.2014, forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner. In essence, the petitioner summarized their argument on delay and laches by pointing out the reduced period of time made available to the petitioner to deposit the quarter of sale consideration as opposed to the stipulated period of 15 days, thereby, praying for the forfeiture of earnest money to be declared premature and contrary to the terms of the contract. 15. However, after having taken a holistic view of the factual scenario of the present matter, including the delayed dispatch of the acceptance letter coupled with the conduct on part of the petitioner in not exhibiting or attempting to deposit the quarter of the sale consideration before the respondent-RIICO, despite having received the letter with a delay of 7 days, cements lack of interest on part of the petitioner in honouring the auction proceedings consensually entered into by the petitioner himself. In this regard, it was fittingly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-RIICO that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner reflected unwillingness and deliberate evasion on his part in submitting the part of the sale consideration, as is corroborated by the fact that even if it was assumed that the letter dated 11.11.2014, informing the petitioner of their bid being successful, was received by the petitioner at a belated stage, then also there was no attempt by the petitioner to submit the said amount. Nor was there any communication/representation on behalf of the petitioner seeking extension of the time period so lapsed on account of the delay. Furthermore, the petitioner never contested the said delay accrued in receiving the letter dated 11.11.2014, which in consonance with other factors, such as the non-deposition of the sale consideration, at any stage, even after the same having come to the petitioner’s knowledge, solely reflects that it was never the intention of the petitioner to deposit the said 25% amount of the sale consideration. Therefore, considering the fact that no application/representation for condoning the delay in deposition of the part of the sale consideration was filed by the petitioner, at any stage, even after the fact of acceptance came into his knowledge, reflects poorly on the conduct of the petitioner, thereby, cementing his intent of not honouring the terms and conditions of the auction proceedings, which were categorically consented upon by the petitioner in the bid document dated 03.09.2014. 16. More importantly, the fact of lack of intent on part of the petitioner in getting the auctioned land allotted in his favour is further corroborated by the fact that the present petition was preferred by the petitioner after the lapse of one year from the date when the cause of action in the instant matter arose i.e. 02.12.2014. Even in the present petition, by way of the prayers so made, a challenge is made only to the forfeiture of the earnest money and not the non-allotment of land or interference in the said allotment proceedings for getting the said commercial plots allotted by way of grant of extended time period to do the needful by the petitioner. Even in the present petition, by way of the prayers so made, a challenge is made only to the forfeiture of the earnest money and not the non-allotment of land or interference in the said allotment proceedings for getting the said commercial plots allotted by way of grant of extended time period to do the needful by the petitioner. Hence, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present matter, this court deems it fit to excuse itself from entertaining the argument raised by the petitioner qua the delay in dispatch and receival of the acceptance letter as a ground for setting aside the order of forfeiture passed by the respondent-RIICO. Furthermore, the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vishal Builders (Supra) is distinguishable on the ground that the said judgment is based on inimitable factual considerations pertaining to the amount to be deposited in terms of their quantum and at the stage, on which, the same were to be deposited before the Delhi Development Authority. Moreover, in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Court adjudged upon the requirement of deposition of 25% of the amount to not be treated as earnest money by categorically holding that the bid amount to be deposited by a party participating in the auction proceedings cannot be treated as earnest money. The court also went on to differentiate the amount submitted in pursuance of a bid by juxtaposing the same with the earnest money deposited while participating in the auction proceedings. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be treated at par to resolve the controversy involved in the present matter and hence, is accordingly distinguished. 17. In sight of the conclusions drawn herein-above, this Court feels upon itself, the inherent need to clarify the position and significance of the payment of earnest money, before entering into a contract, either by way of auction proceedings or otherwise. In general, without drawing any reference to the present dispute, it is observed that the concept of earnest money, by its very nature and form, is indicative/reflective of sincerity on part of the party depositing the said amount, to furnish their bonafides and their earnest effort in honouring their commitment so bid for or sought after. In general, without drawing any reference to the present dispute, it is observed that the concept of earnest money, by its very nature and form, is indicative/reflective of sincerity on part of the party depositing the said amount, to furnish their bonafides and their earnest effort in honouring their commitment so bid for or sought after. Thus, in legal parlance, earnest money is referred to as a form of security payment/deposit made in a transaction sought be entered into and/or completed to demonstrate that the payer is serious and willing to demonstrate their earnest of good faith about wanting to enter into the said transaction. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon consideration of the intent behind the deposition of earnest money altogether coupled with the fact of forfeiture of the same upon non-deposition of the stipulated amount by the petitioner, supports the claim of the respondents qua the lack of intent to honour the said contract between the parties, on part of the petitioner, which is further supported by way of the retraction letter drafted by the petitioner dated 10.09.2014, suggesting the attempt on part of the petitioner to frustrate the bid proceedings in their entirety. 18. 18. Therefore, in light of the observations made herein-above and upon consideration of the fact that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent-RIICO with open eyes after having duly perused and consented to the terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement so issued by the respondent-RIICO; that no objection was ever raised by the petitioner regarding the terms and conditions spelled out by the respondent-RIICO in the said advertisement dated 15.08.2014 before submitting his bid for the allotment of commercial plots along with the corresponding earnest money required to be paid; that upon acceptance of the petitioner’s bid by the respondent-RIICO, a valid contract came to be in existence between the parties and any breach of the conditions thereof, empowered the respondent-RIICO to forfeit the amount of earnest money, as provided in the terms and conditions of the advertisement so issued by them; that the defense of delay, as raised by the petitioner, on part of the respondent in dispatching the acceptance letter at a belated stage, thereby preventing the due compliance of the terms and conditions of the contract is not tenable in terms of the established intent of the petitioner in not participating in the said proceedings by way of his lethargic and unreasonable conduct and thereby, frustrating the auction proceedings in their entirety; that no sincere attempt/effort was made by the petitioner in depositing the required 25% amount of the total sale consideration, either by way of any representation or application for the condition of delay in submission of the said amount; that the instant petition was preferred with a delay of over one year from the date as on when the cause of action arose; that the very intent behind the deposition of earnest money is to demonstrate a party’s earnest of good faith in wanting to enter into a transaction and further considering the fact that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Vishal Builders (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present matter, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present writ petition. 19. Accordingly, in light of the observations made herein-above, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.