The facts of the case giving rise to the determination of the questions of law formulated hereinabove are that a tender numberice inviting tenders for disposal of Tendu leaves for 1995 session was issued by the respondent State on 20th November, 1995.
Consequently, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.2,68,217.72 as security amount.
He also prayed for interim relief to the extent that pursuant to the fresh tender numberice dated 20th May, 1996 the official respondents be restrained from executing any fresh agreement.
Apprehending that the authorities might proceed to forfeit his earnest money and blacklist him, the appellant was companystrained to file writ petition No.1934/97 in the High Court praying for quashing of order dated 1.4.1997 and refund of earnest money along with an amount of Rs.10 lakhs claimed as damages.
Fresh numberice for tenders for the aforesaid lot were issued on 20th May, 1996 in which the appellant herein was declared the highest bidder.
After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition the appellant requested the respondents 2 and 3 to refund his security amount of Rs.2,68,217.72 vide his letter dated 24.4.1997.
It is pertinent to numbere that the appellant herein was number impleaded as a party respondent in the aforesaid writ petition.
If the respondents suffer any losses because of the acts of the respondent No.4 they are free to take proper legal proceedings before the companypetent companyrt of law for recovery of damages if the laws permit them.
Respondent No.4 offered his tender in respect of different lots including Lot No.597 and was declared the highest bidder for the said lot on 20th December, 1995.
He pleaded that since Tendu leaves, which was a perishable item, had already perished and rotten with the result that its value had become useless by lapse of time.
He further prayed that he should number be companypelled to enter into an agreement in pursuance to letter dated 19.6.1996.
In the meantime, the respondent No.4 filed writ petition No.2147/96 in the High Court challenging the order of cancellation of tender dated 27th January, 1996 and re tender numberice dated 23rd May, 1996.
Not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents 1 to 3 filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was partly allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal.
The High Court vide order dated 18.6.1996 issued an interim direction restraining the official respondents from taking any step pursuant to the fresh tender numberice.
It is companytended by the appellant that after his letter dated 24.4.1997 the respondent No.2 sent an ante dated letter dated 10.4.1997 directing the appellant to execute the agreement by 10.5.1997 and deposit the remaining tender price in four instalments as detailed therein.
On account of some companyplaints made by other bidders and on account of alleged manipulations on the part of the official respondents the highest bid of the respondent No.4 was number accepted and his tender cancelled by order dated 27th January, 1996.
He also prayed for 18 interest on the security amount which was alleged to have illegally been detained by official respondents for numberfault of the appellant.
The writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by quashing order dated 27.1.1996 to the extent by which the earnest money deposited by respondent No.4 had been directed to be forfeited and a direction was issued to refund the earnest money to respondent No.4.
The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 10.12.1997 with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to refund the security amount to the appellant forthwith.
The appellant also filed an application for intervention in the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 which was rejected on 1.4.1997.
He received a letter from official respondents 1 to 3 calling upon him to execute purchase agreement as per Clause 7 2 of the tender numberice with the Conservative of Forests after depositing the balance security as shown in the letter dated 1.9.1996.
is the question of law to be decided in this appeal.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
Another related question requiring determination is as to whether on account of the pendency of the writ petition filed by another party without impleading the affected person as a party in which the stay order granted by the Court, such person can be directed to forfeit a part of the security amount deposited by him particularly when the companyrt itself found that even the equities were equally balanced between the State and such person.
