JUDGMENT : Umesh A. Trivedi, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs: (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus /or a writ of appropriate nature quashing and setting aside Clause 9, 10 and 13 of the tender dated 06.01.2021, challenging the letter of intimation of acceptance of bid dated 16.03.2021 to the extent it allots the plot to the petitioner for the purpose of lease instead of sale and direct respondent no.2 to issue fresh letter of intimation to the petitioner for acceptance of bid for sale of subject plot and declare the action of respondent no.2 for forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit of petitioner to be illegal; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus /or writ of appropriate nature directing respondent no.2 to grant time up to 31.12.2022 to the petitioner to pay the remaining balance bid amount under the tender (Annexure-A); (C) During the pendency, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain respondent no.2 from issuing another tender for auction /sale /lease of Final Plot No.127 situated at Kudasan TPS No.6 (Kudasan – Saragasan – Dholakuva – POR), Opposite Pramukh Arcade, Kudasan in Gandhinagar; (D) In the alternative, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent no.2 to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.1,00,58,400/- alongwith interest; (E) Ex-Parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 7(B) may kindly be granted in the interest of justice; (F) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the present case, may kindly be granted. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is preferred bidder of e-auction conducted by Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority (‘GUDA’ for the sake of brevity) in respect of Final Plot No.127 (sale for commercial) admeasuring 12573 sq meters on a long term lease of 99 years by way of online e-auction. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is preferred bidder of e-auction conducted by Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority (‘GUDA’ for the sake of brevity) in respect of Final Plot No.127 (sale for commercial) admeasuring 12573 sq meters on a long term lease of 99 years by way of online e-auction. The petitioner being the highest bidder, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Request For Proposal (RFP) and general terms and conditions of the tender, was issued an intimation letter dated 16.03.2021 whereby, as per the terms of tender, he has been asked to deposit 10% amount of bid within 10 days thereof and remaining 90% of the amount, the petitioner was required to deposit within 30 days thereof. The said intimation further reveals that if no amount is deposited, as aforesaid, the amount deposited so far, as per the terms of tender, will be forfeited and action in accordance therewith would be initiated. It is further made clear in that intimation that it may not be treated as allotment of plot or it may not be presumed that possession thereof is given. It is coming out from the record that several communications were made by the petitioner seeking extension of time and it is extended on so many occasions. Despite the same, the petitioner has failed to deposit the bid amount. Neither 10%, which was required to be deposited is paid within 10 days of the letter of intimation nor 90% remaining amount, which was required to be deposited within 30 days thereof, is paid. The respondent–authority was constrained to, vide communication dated 14.10.2021, forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit on the petitioner’s failure to pay the amount within time limit mentioned in the payment schedule of RFP as per Condition No.22.1 and 22.4. Despite petitioner being preferred bidder in accordance with that terms, since 180 maximum days as per the terms and conditions of RFP /tender was over, despite further prayer for extension of time was made by the petitioner, it came to be declined and the respondent-authority was constrained to pass the aforesaid order forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit. In the aforesaid background, though the petitioner is a successful bidder, having failed to deposit the amount offered by him as per the payment schedule, order for forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit in accordance with the terms of RFP /tender came to be passed. 3. Mr. In the aforesaid background, though the petitioner is a successful bidder, having failed to deposit the amount offered by him as per the payment schedule, order for forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit in accordance with the terms of RFP /tender came to be passed. 3. Mr. Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Masoom K. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that though advertisement by the respondent-authority for the aforesaid plot in question was for sale, the petitioner was misguided when communication is made that the lease deed for 99 years is required to be executed instead of sale deed. With a view to support his aforesaid submission, he drew attention of the Court to page 44 of the compilation that the authority took a decision to sell the plot in question when Land Price Fixing Committee of the authority determined the market price per sq meter as premium price /base price as mentioned in that minutes of meeting of Land Price Fixing Committee of the respondent authority. Drawing attention of the Court to the document downloaded from the website of the auctioning authority, a copy of the Winner Report specifying the auction detail and item details as Item No.1 is approved for sale. He has further drawn attention of the Court to the map of plot in question, which is part of RFP /tender terms, which is also reflecting the plot in question as sale for commercial purpose. Further drawing attention of the Court to the title of page 22, which is part of instructions to the bidder in a tender condition, again the plot in question is shown to be sale for commercial. On the basis of the aforesaid instances, Mr. Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Masoom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the RFP /tender conditions runs counter to the decision of the authority to sell the plot when tender was floated for the purpose of 99 years lease of the plot in question. Therefore, it is submitted that the authority could not have offered the plot in question on lease instead of outright sale. Therefore, it is submitted that the authority could not have offered the plot in question on lease instead of outright sale. With a view to justify the non-payment of amount of bid, it is submitted that the petitioner participated in the bid considering it to be a plot, which is offered for outright sale and not on lease, and therefore, it is submitted that Clauses 9 and 10 in instructions to bidder /applicants when plot in question is offered providing lease period to be 99 years from the date of possession of the plot and determining the lease rent on annual basis to be paid in advance for a total period of 20 years plus GST, as per the terms of lease deed at the time of final payment as also Condition No.13 at Annexure B the terms and conditions of lease and development of plot provides “the lessee shall not mortgage or transfer or part with permission or sublet the premises or apportion there or without the permission of GUDA” on the ground that instead of outright sale, as reflected from the aforesaid submission made in earlier paragraph, the tender was floated and conditions provided for plot in question came to be granted on long term lease of 99 years, and therefore, it is against that declaration and decision, and therefore, Clauses 9, 10 and 13, as aforesaid, are illegal and required to be quashed and set aside. 3.1 In the very same prayer 7(A) of the petition, challenge to the letter of intimation dated 16.03.2021 is made to the extent that it allots the plot to the petitioner for the purpose of lease instead of sale with a further prayer seeking direction against the respondent–authority to issue fresh letter of intimation to the petitioner for acceptance of bid for sale of subject plot coupled with further prayer to declare the decision of the respondent–authority forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit to be illegal. The multiple prayer made in paragraph 7(A) is based on the aforesaid submission alone. In paragraph 7(B) of the petition, a further relief is prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ directing respondent no.2 to grant time up to 31.12.2022, as requested by the petitioner, through a communication to extend the time to deposit the amount. The multiple prayer made in paragraph 7(A) is based on the aforesaid submission alone. In paragraph 7(B) of the petition, a further relief is prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ directing respondent no.2 to grant time up to 31.12.2022, as requested by the petitioner, through a communication to extend the time to deposit the amount. On aforesaid two broad prayers, the petition is filed and argued by the learned Counsel in view of the aforesaid submissions. 3.2 Mr. Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Masoom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, further submitted that though for the present auction in question, plot was offered on lease for 99 years, subsequently the very authority has offered the very same plot by way of auction as an outright sale, and therefore, it is submitted that the plot, which was offered for sale when the petitioner stood highest in e-auction, they could not have changed their stand offering the plot for long term lease of 99 years. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is submitted that this petition may be allowed by granting the prayers made in the petition. 3.3 In support of his submission, Mr. Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Masoom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Alisha Khan Vs. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3340, more particularly, paragraph nos. 3 and 4 where Supreme Court ordered to refund the amount of 25% of auction sale consideration to be returned to the petitioner to contend that forfeiting Earnest Money Deposit is also required to be refunded to him in view of the aforesaid decision. 4. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent –authority drawing attention of the Court to the affidavit-inreply filed on behalf of it submitted that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 119 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 regulation namely Urban/ Area Development Authorities Allotment of Land /Site /Grant of Development Rights Regulation, 2002 framed a policy for disposal of land /site and other properties by way of sale or lease in consideration of premium or rent or both by grant of development rights in accordance with the regulations. Pursuant thereto, according to submission of Mr. Pursuant thereto, according to submission of Mr. Munshaw, the Committee known as Land Price Fixing Committee of GUDA determined the premium to be paid in respect of the plot in question at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per sq meter as premium /base price. It is submitted that the request for proposal provided terms and conditions to interested parties to participate through e-auction on e-procurement portal with complete details. It is coming out from the affidavit that every document on the portal including RFP /tender terms of the plot in question which was put to auction, it would be for 99 years lease. Drawing attention of the Court to the advertisement itself, more particularly, advertisement at page 20, which is English version of the same and at page 19 Gujarati version reflects that any queries and clarifications sought by the bidder may be sent to the respondent-authority on a website mentioned therein latest by 31.01.2021. In view thereof, it was submitted that if at all the petitioner had any grievance about the decision of the Committee, as claimed by him, which is incorrect, the plot in question was for the purpose of outright sale not for 99 years lease, and when RFP /tender reflects the same for the purpose of lease, he should have raised that grievance in accordance with even advertisement itself within the time mentioned therein. It is further submitted that after about 121 rounds of auction between 3 parties named in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply, since the offer of the petitioner was highest to be Rs.1,14,400/- per sq meter, he was preferred bidder being at H1 place, and therefore, he was issued letter of intimation dated 16.03.2021 intimating him to make the payment as per the payment schedule mentioned in the tender terms. However, according to the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent-authority, the petitioner failed to pay the entire amount as per payment schedule offered by him, and therefore, there was no option for the authority but to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit as per the terms of RFP /tender, which is as per the terms agreed by the petitioner to participate in a bid by payment of tender fee as also Earnest Money Deposit. It is further submitted that despite several repeated letters sent by the petitioner praying for extension of time to deposit the offered amount being preferred bidder and several extensions granted up to permissible limit, the petitioner failed to make the payment, and therefore, there was no option but to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit as per the terms of RFP /tender, and therefore, he has submitted that this petition is without any substance, and therefore, it should be rejected with cost. 5. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr.Sunil Joshi and Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani, learned advocate appearing for the successful bidder in a subsequent bid for the very same land, though not a party in the present proceedings but he is joined as a party in connected Special Civil Application, which is also heard and is to be disposed of today only, he is permitted to argue the case. 5.1 Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel drawing attention of the Court to page 28 and various terms of RFP /tender, more particularly, Clause 7 and sub-clauses thereof submitted that all bidders submitting the bid shall be deemed to have made a complete and careful examination of the RFP received all relevant information requested from GUDA, acknowledged and accepted the risk of inadequacy, error or mistake in information provided in RFP or furnished by or on behalf of GUDA relating to any of the matters. Drawing attention to particularly Clause 7.5, it is submitted that not only the RFP and terms of tender clearly mentions about plot in question is offered for long term lease of 99 years, it provides that all clauses thereof refers lease, lease rent and lessee, which is more than clear that e-auction was conducted of the plot in question for lease of 99 years and not for an outright sale. Drawing attention of the Court to condition Nos.18 & 18.4.2 at page 30, which reads as under; “18. The Bid Security shall be forfeited as Damages without prejudice to any other right or remedy that may be available to GUDA under the Auction Documents and /or under the Lease Deed or otherwise, under the following conditions:” “18.4.2. Drawing attention of the Court to condition Nos.18 & 18.4.2 at page 30, which reads as under; “18. The Bid Security shall be forfeited as Damages without prejudice to any other right or remedy that may be available to GUDA under the Auction Documents and /or under the Lease Deed or otherwise, under the following conditions:” “18.4.2. Failure to make payment of consideration in accordance with the payment schedule mentioned therein.” Referring to Clause 22, General Conditions read with Clause 22.4 and 23, it is submitted that payment schedule is provided in Clause 22.1 wherein preferred bidder is required to pay 10% of the total amount within 10 days from the date of the letter of intimation, which is 16.03.2021 for this case and remaining 90% of the total amount within 30 days of the date of letter of intimation. However, as per the submission of the learned Counsel, the petitioner failed to deposit any amount as per payment schedule referred to in Clause 22.1, and therefore, the authority has rightly invoked their right as per the terms to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit and they are also empowered to forfeit all the amounts paid earlier deposited by successful bidder, who having succeeded in auction but failed in paying the amount as per the payment schedule. 5.2. Drawing further attention of the Court to page 38, which is Annexure B to the tender document providing terms and conditions for development of plot, it is submitted that it is more than clear as day light that the plot in question was offered for lease for a period of 99 years and not outright sale as claimed by the petitioner. 5.3 It is further submitted that vide letter dated 01.04.2021, which is at page 54 of the petition praying for extension of time, drawing attention of the Court to the subject mentioned therein by the petitioner himself, he was also aware in the month of April, 2021 that the plot in question was to be allotted on lease for 99 years and not as an outright sale, as claimed. 5.4 It is further submitted that while allowing several extension of time for deposit of amount, a mature decision extending time up to 22.09.2021 was taken and thereafter only the Earnest Money Deposit came to be forfeited simultaneously refusing further request for six months vide communication dated 17.08.2021 made by the petitioner. 5.4 It is further submitted that while allowing several extension of time for deposit of amount, a mature decision extending time up to 22.09.2021 was taken and thereafter only the Earnest Money Deposit came to be forfeited simultaneously refusing further request for six months vide communication dated 17.08.2021 made by the petitioner. He has further submitted that it is not even the case of the petitioner himself that the respondent-authority acted beyond the terms of RFP /tender, and therefore, he has submitted that since the petition is merit less, it may be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and going through the memo of petition, Annexures, affidavit-in-reply and the documents on record, it emerges that the petitioner is a successful bidder and declared to be a preferred bidder in accordance with the terms of RFP /tender. 6.1 The arguments made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in Committee meeting when the market price is determined for the plot in question, authority determined it to auction it for the purpose of outright sale cannot be countenanced for the reason that the said determination is made by the Land Price Fixing Committee and not the Committee, who can take a decision whether to offer the plot for outright sale or lease. If that decision of the Land Price Fixing Committee determining the market price of the land in question per sq meter is to be considered, it has determined the same on 10.11.2020 when bid was not floated through e-auction process. Registration of the bidder and duration thereof was shown to be 06.01.2021 to 05.02.2021 i.e. for a period of one month, in an advertisement of tender. The support is derived from the Gujarati version of advertisement at page 19 to contend that the advertisement itself states that plot in question is offered for outright sale and not on lease. However, if English version of the very same advertisement is seen, which is at page 20, it speaks about an opportunity to be in Gandhinagar e-auction of GUDA plots, nowhere it is stating whether it is for an outright sale or lease. However, both the versions of an advertisement provide that if any queries and clarification is to be sought by bidder from the respondent-authority, they were permitted to send their queries through a website named therein latest by 31.01.2021 providing sufficient opportunity and time. However, both the versions of an advertisement provide that if any queries and clarification is to be sought by bidder from the respondent-authority, they were permitted to send their queries through a website named therein latest by 31.01.2021 providing sufficient opportunity and time. Still however, the petitioner, even after looking at the RFP /tender and terms thereof, never submitted any grievance with regard to offering of plots for long term lease under the tender instead of outright sale as perceived by him. If RFP /tender and terms and conditions thereof are perused, the auction was for the purpose of long term lease for a period of 99 years as it is very much clear for each tender, being Final Plot No.127 in TP Scheme No. 6 (Sargasan-Kudasan-Dholakuva-Por) wherein Serial No.8, 9 and 10 are very clear providing lease period as also lease rent to be paid requesting the bidder to submit their bid /proposal in prescribed form Annexure A. If RFP /tender with instructions to bidder and terms and conditions are perused, it is clear that the plot in question was to be allotted on long term lease of 99 years and not for outright sale, as conceived by the petitioner. Even if the contention of the petitioner is to be believed that the Gujarati version of the advertisement is stating about the outright sale as per the terms of RFP /tender, which is very much in unequivocal terms providing plots available for long term lease and not as outright sale, the petitioner could have either raised query after reading and before participating in e-auction itself for the same. Not only the petitioner did not raise any query, on the contrary he participated with an open eye after reading all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the application, Annexure A where the petitioner stood as highest bidder being preferred bidder as per RFP /tender and he did not raise any grievance that the plot offered is not for outright sale but on lease. Furthermore, after the auction is over and he is declared to be a preferred bidder vide communication dated 16.03.2021, which is a letter of intimation, he is asked to deposit the amount as per payment schedule mentioned in RFP /tender specifying it to be 10% of the total premium amount to be deposited within 10 days of the letter of intimation and remaining 90% to be deposited within a period of 30 days thereof, which shows under the head of subject requesting him to deposit the amount as per his highest offer for 99 years lease of plot in question. He never raised any dispute about the misconception of outright sale and on the contrary he went on seeking extension of time to deposit the offered amount. Not only that, several extensions were granted and when he was provided six months time in all to deposit the said amount, he failed to deposit the same. 6.2 Despite communication intimating him about the last date of extension to be 22.09.2021, before that date he again asked for extension vide his communication dated 17.08.2021 for a further period of six months, which came to be rejected by the authority and he was accordingly informed that he is supposed to deposit the same by 22.09.2021 and if he fails to deposit the same, Earnest Money Deposit amount is required to be forfeited. Despite that, he repeated his request to further extend time from 22.09.2021, which cannot be taken note of it by the authority. However by a decision dated 14.10.2021 as per the Condition Nos.22.1 and 22.4 of payment schedule of RFP /tender, since preferred bidder failed to deposit the amount in schedule time as also extended time, Earnest Money Deposit came to be forfeited by the authority. Still however, after participation in an open bid in e-auction conducted on 10.02.2021, no grievance was ever raised by the petitioner about his so called misconception offering plot in question not as outright sale but for a lease of 99 years. The petitioner as a successful bidder /preferred bidder having failed to deposit the amount within the time schedule mentioned in the terms of RFP /tender and despite time extended further for six months in all, Earnest Money Deposit came to be forfeited nearly after one month thereafter. The petitioner as a successful bidder /preferred bidder having failed to deposit the amount within the time schedule mentioned in the terms of RFP /tender and despite time extended further for six months in all, Earnest Money Deposit came to be forfeited nearly after one month thereafter. Still however, for a further period of two months, no such petition is ever filed and for the first time it is affirmed on 30.12.2021 by the petitioner, who is successful bidder, who failed to deposit the entire amount he offered in auction. Despite sufficient time is granted to him to deposit the same by way of extension, that too, at the request made by the petitioner, this petition has come to be filed challenging Clauses 9 and 10 of instruction to bidder where it provides plot in question offered for lease period and /or lease rent and a further condition no.13 wherein lessee is prohibited from mortgaging /transferring or parting with permission or sub-letting the premises or apportioning there or without permission of GUDA, which cannot be countenanced. 6.3 His further challenge to the letter of intimation dated 16.03.2021 to the extent that it allots the plot to the petitioner for the purpose of lease instead of sale cannot be entertained for the simple reason that as per his own application, he has gone through all the terms and conditions mentioned in RFP as also tender terms, and therefore, he cannot be heard to say that he misconstrued that plot is offered for outright sale and not on lease. Not only that, having participated in the bid, standing as preferred bidder offering highest price went on requesting extension of time fully aware about the fact that the plot is offered for lease and not outright sale as conceived by him. He did not think it fit, if at all he can challenge the same at those stages having failed to deposit the entire amount within extended period also, that too, more than two months after forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit, he has come out with the present petition, which cannot be entertained at his instance, more particularly, when with an open eye, he participated in the bid providing for lease of plot in question to contend that he is mislead by the advertisement that the plot is offered for outright sale. Bid /tender documents RFP /tender terms all available on the named website through which petitioner participated in eauction clearly indicates that it was for 99 years lease in respect of plot in question. 6.4 Since after the letter of intimation was issued in favour of the petitioner, he failed to deposit the entire amount offered by him in auction, there is no question of issuing any allotment letter to him, which may be required to be cancelled as suggested by him. It was incidentally contended that without cancelling the allotment in the present tender, the very plot was offered again for auction in second attempt, which failed because of non participation by anyone. However, in third attempt, it was offered for outright sale, which could not have been permitted without cancelling the allotment of petitioner in the first auction. Again there appears misconception in the mind of the petitioner that he is issued any allotment order. The allotment order is to be issued only after the petitioner deposits the entire amount offered by him for auction of the plot and then only possession of the plot was required to be handed over to him for the purpose of development thereof as per the terms of RFP /tender. The petitioner has further failed to consider that Clause 25 of general terms and conditions of RFP /tender provides that the lease hold right on the plot and transfer of plot over the plot would be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in Annexure B page 38 of the compilation, which states about conditions for lease and development of plot. Not only that Annexure B, which is terms and conditions for development of plot clearly specifies that lease deed will be between GUDA and the selected lessee and it is to be done within six months of the letter of possession of the plot. Since there is non payment of the amount as per the payment schedule, auction having failed, authorities are at liberty to initiate any action in accordance with the terms and conditions but petitioner cannot say that without cancelling the allotment, which was never done, no second or third auction could have been conducted by the authority. Since there is non payment of the amount as per the payment schedule, auction having failed, authorities are at liberty to initiate any action in accordance with the terms and conditions but petitioner cannot say that without cancelling the allotment, which was never done, no second or third auction could have been conducted by the authority. Since there is no allotment of plot or possession handed over to the petitioner of the plot by that intimation letter, there is no question of cancelling the allotment or termination of tender as such. It is the consequence of non deposit or breach of terms and conditions of RFP /tender, the whole process comes to an end. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in again offering the very same plot for the purpose of auction. After that, a conscious decision is taken this time in accordance with the aforesaid regulation to offer it for outright sale. The Annexure A which is part of RFP /tender is to be filled up by the bidder and uploaded with registration form duly signed by the petitioner which reflects at page 37 Clause 10 thereof declaring that bidder has examined the RFP documents and understood its contents and thereafter only submitted his /her bid for the plot. It is also understood and acknowledged by the petitioner that the GUDA would be relying on the information provided in the bid and documents accompanying such bid for selection of the preferred bidder for the aforesaid plot with a clarification that all the information provided in the bid are true and correct. It is further agreed by the petitioner, who duly signed that the bid /proposal is made or submitted by the petitioner after taking into consideration all the terms and conditions stated in the RFP and all the conditions that may affect the project cost and implementation /development of the plot in accordance with the instructions terms of GUDA and at Clause 12 the petitioner has clearly stated that she has read, understood, agreed and undertake to abide by all the conditions contained under the RFP including Annexure annexed therewith. Therefore, it is as clear as anything that when the petitioner participated in an auction for the plot in question, which was to be offered for lease for a period of 99 years and not outright sale as claimed. Therefore, it is as clear as anything that when the petitioner participated in an auction for the plot in question, which was to be offered for lease for a period of 99 years and not outright sale as claimed. 6.5 The petitioner’s agreement to pay tender fee as also depositing Earnest Money Deposit for consideration of petitioner’s bid and to abide by the terms and conditions of RFP /tender, which provided for forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit, now cannot be heard to say that the terms and conditions are not valid or petitioner misunderstood the offering of a plot for outright sale and not on lease for 99 years. At the same time, we cannot undertake judicial review of terms and conditions of RFP /tender, that too, at the instance of the petitioner who participated in tender process stood highest bidder and committed breach of terms for depositing the entire consideration, which led to cancellation of entire process. 6.6 If for the failure of petitioner to deposit the entire amount offered as per the payment schedule and /or extended period, which is extended here for at least six months when Earnest Money Deposit is forfeited as per the terms of RFP /tender conditions, it cannot be said that the respondentauthority has not acted fairly justly and reasonably questioning the whole process and the order impugned. As such, for such a misconceived petition, we would have imposed exemplary cost but we refrain ourselves from imposing exemplary cost for the reason that the petitioner being a lady Director who has preferred the same and as we have been given to understand that the Private Limited Company consists of only two lady Directors. 6.7 The decision in the case of Alisha Khan (Supra) relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be cited as a precedent as it is not a judgment determining the issue which is sought to be argued. At the same time, if the Supreme Court has passed an order refunding 25% of the auction sale consideration de hors any terms and conditions that can be said to be exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the power, this Court does not possess. At any rate, it is neither precedent to be cited nor obitor dicta as sought to be canvased by the learned advocate for the petitioner. At any rate, it is neither precedent to be cited nor obitor dicta as sought to be canvased by the learned advocate for the petitioner. We find nothing wrong in forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit as per the terms and conditions of RFP /tender, more particularly, when being aware since the day of participation in the tender or before that no such grievance was ever raised or voiced even after two months of forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit. 7. In view thereof, the present Notice is discharged.