ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to set aside the Memo No.2731 dated 17.11.2022, issued by the Block Development Officer (Annexure 4), whereby he has cancelled the Tender No.NIT/01-2022-23 allotted in favour of the petitioner and has forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner to set aside the fresh tender, which has been issued. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is confining his prayer only to the extent of refund of the earnest money, deposited by the petitioner, which has been forfeited pursuant to Annexure 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner participated in NIT No.01/2022-23, which was floated for repairing of Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Kashmar and Odia for Rs.685000/- and direction has been issued to deposit Rs.137000/- as Earnest Money. Tender of the petitioner was accepted after completion of all the formalities. One of the conditions of the tender was that the successful tenderer had to execute the contract within three days. He submits that the letters, informing that the petitioner’s offer has been accepted and the petitioner has to execute the agreement, which were issued on 15.10.2022 and 28.10.2022, were received on 29.10.2022. He submits that 30th October was Sunday and 31st October was local holiday for Chhath Puja, thus, the petitioner could not execute the agreement, as stipulated. He submits that the petitioner went to the Office of the Block Development Officer on 01.11.2022 for finalization of the agreement, when the Block Development Officer informed that since the period of three days have already lapsed, agreement cannot be allowed to be executed. Petitioner filed a representation, but nothing happened. Ultimately, the letter dated 17.11.2022 was issued, cancelling the tender and forfeiting the earnest money deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was issued before passing the order by which earnest money was forfeited. In violation of the principles of natural justice, the aforesaid order was passed. His further argument is that admittedly the notices were received during holidays, which prevented the petitioner from executing the agreement within three days, as stipulated, as such, the respondents could not penalize the petitioner by forfeiting the earnest money. In violation of the principles of natural justice, the aforesaid order was passed. His further argument is that admittedly the notices were received during holidays, which prevented the petitioner from executing the agreement within three days, as stipulated, as such, the respondents could not penalize the petitioner by forfeiting the earnest money. He submits that now a fresh tender has been issued but he is not wreaking up the said issue relating to the fresh tender, rather is confining his prayer only with respect to the forfeiture of the earnest money, which is bad. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that Clause 16 of the Notice Inviting Tender clearly stipulates that on receipt of the allotment letter, within three days, agreement had to be executed and work had to commence and on failure of the same, earnest money deposited will be forfeited. The State submits that admittedly neither the agreement was executed within three days nor the work commenced in terms of the clause, the earnest money was forfeited. 4. After hearing the parties, we find that it is an admitted case that a tender was issued being NIT No.1/2022-23 which was floated for repairing of Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Kashmar and Odia for Rs.685000/-. Clause 16 of the said tender provides that within three days from receipt of the work order, the successful bidder had to enter into an agreement and start the work or else, the earnest money deposit will be forfeited. Annexure 2 is letter No.2581 dated 15th October, 2022, which intimated the petitioner that he is the successful bidder and he should comply Clause 16 of the NIT, i.e., sign the agreement and start the work within three days. The endorsement in the said letter showed that the petitioner received the letter on 29.10.2022. Again a letter dated 28th October, 2022 was issued, which is by way of reminder, intimating the petitioner to immediately start the work and execute the agreement or else steps will be taken to forfeit the earnest money and cancel the tender. 5. Petitioner, in the writ petition, has categorically stated at paragraph 8 that these two letters were received on 29.10.2022. 5. Petitioner, in the writ petition, has categorically stated at paragraph 8 that these two letters were received on 29.10.2022. The next two days, i.e., 30th October and 31st October were Chhath Puja and were holidays, thus, the petitioner reached the Office of the Block Development Officer on 1st November, 2022, but, the petitioner was prevented from signing the agreement and thereafter the tender was cancelled. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition as these two paragraphs are crux of the writ petition. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition reads as under: - “7. That thereafter on 29-10-2022 Petitioner has got two Letter from the Office of B.D.O., Patamda those are Letter No.2581 dated 15-10-2022 by which it has been informed to the petitioner that his Tender has been accepted and direction has been given to comply the Condition No.16 of the Tender and Letter no.2647 dated 28-10-2022 by which direction has been given to comply condition No.16 of the Tender notification failing which Tender of petitioner will cancelled and his earnest money will be forfeited. 8. That Petitioner has received aforesaid two letters on 29-10-2022 and Next day i.e. 30-10-2022 was Sunday and 31-10-2022 was Holiday for Chhat Puja. The petitioner has gone to the Office of B.D.O., Patanda with all relevant papers on 01-11-2022 for finalization of Work Agreement But Junior Engineer after discussing with the B.D.O., Patamda has finally told the petitioner that his time has already been over, therefore they will not do work agreement with petitioner.” 6. In this case a counter affidavit has already been filed. In the counter affidavit, the only ground taken by the respondents is that Clause 16 of the NIT was violated, meaning thereby the agreement was not signed within three days, neither the work commenced. On the contention raised by the petitioner, which was made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition, wherein it was stated that the petitioner received the letters belatedly on 29th October, 2022 and next two days were Holidays, the respondents have not denied the statement, rather in the counter affidavit, they dealt the said statements made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition, at paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit, the respondents had only mentioned that the same is a matter of record and in paragraph 24, the respondents have stated that the allegation that the letter was received on 29.10.2022 is baseless. This denial is an evasive denial. The fact remains that clear three days excluding the holidays were not granted to the petitioner to sign the agreement. 7. In this case three days time was granted to the petitioner to sign the agreement and thereafter start execution. A successful tenderer should get a reasonable period to execute the agreement. What can be a “reasonable period” may differ, but a period of three days can never be termed as reasonable period nor it is sufficient. 8. We further find that before forfeiting the earnest money, no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why not the earnest money be forfeited, on the facts of the case. Letter dated 28th October, 2022 cannot be said to be a show cause notice, rather the same was reminder to execute the agreement which also reminds the petitioner, the consequence that if the same is not done, earnest money deposit may be forfeited. This letter is not a show cause notice to forfeit the earnest money. Further, in the representation, the petitioner has also stated about the delay in receipt of intimation and the fact of Holidays, but, the same was not considered. In a whimsical manner, without following the principles of natural justice, respondent-Block Development Officer has issued the order forfeiting the earnest money deposit of the petitioner. We hold that the action of the respondents forfeiting the earnest money deposit is absolutely bad and smacks malice. There is no compliance of natural justice. Petitioner has been forced by the respondent authorities to approach the Court unnecessarily to seek remedy against a whimsical act of the respondents. Thus, we are inclined to allow this writ petition. Memo No.2731 dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the earnest money deposit to the petitioner immediately along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit of such earnest money. We further direct the respondents to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid to the petitioner. 9. Respondents are directed to refund the earnest money deposit to the petitioner immediately along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit of such earnest money. We further direct the respondents to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid to the petitioner. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.