MALNAD INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HMT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful Petitioner in W.P.13807/2006 wherein the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition declining to grant the prayer sought in the writ petition to quash the letter dated 2.6.2005 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition and the letter dated 22.5.2006 vide Annexure-J to the writ petition. It is the case of the writ Petitioner-Appellant herein that the tender had been invited by the first Respondent inviting offers for purchase of land measuring 18 acres in and around Jalahalli Village, Bangalore. The writ Petitioner had deposited a sum of 20/- lakhs by way of earnest money deposit and he was the highest bidder. Further he was called for negotiation and he did not attend the negotiation. The writ Petitioner by a letter dated 27.12.2004 has withdrawn the offer in respect of his bid submitted by him. Thereafter there were correspondences between the writ Petitioner and the first Respondent regarding the allotment of plot No. ML-2. Though the Petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the full sale consideration within 30 days from 24.5.2005 as per Annexure-F to the writ petition, the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-G was issued stating that since the Petitioner had withdrawn the offer in respect of bid submitted by him by letter dated 27.12.2004 and on the basis of the said letter, question of remaining the highest bidder would not arise and his request for allotment of said plot does not survive for consideration and no further negotiation can be held. Thereafter they were unable to entertain any further correspondence in the matter. Again an endorsement was issued on 17/22.5.2006 vide Annexure-J to the writ petition wherein it was again reiterated that no further correspondence would be entertained in respect of plot No. ML-2. In the writ petition the writ Petitioner contended that though he was ready to pay the full price of the plot, it was not accepted and earnest money deposit could not have been forfeited. The Respondent filed statement of objection denying the claim of the Petitioner. The learned single Judge held that though the Petitioner was the highest bidder, he did not pursue the matter and had withdrawn his offer and as such his bid could not be considered and the question as to forfeiture of earnest money deposit and whether the writ Petitioner is entitled for refund of earnest money deposit is purely a contractual matter which is a civil dispute and cannot looked into by this Court under the writ jurisdiction and the endorsements impugned in the writ petition do not call for interference and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 16.9.2008. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, this appeal is filed by the writ Petitioner.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that the Appellant was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted and he was ready to pay the amount. He has deposited 20/- lakhs as earnest money deposit and the earnest money would not have been forfeited. Therefore, the impugned endorsements to the writ petition as per Annexure-G and 3 ought to have been set aside and direction ought to have been issued for refund of earnest money deposit.

(3.) We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and scrutinised the material on record. The material on record would clearly show that the notification was issued regarding sale of plot No. ML-2 measuring 18 acres situated in and around Jalahalli Village, Bangalore, belonging to the first Respondent and bid was called for with a condition that an amount of '20/- lakhs should be deposited as earnest money. The material on record would further show that the bid of the Appellant which was the highest was accepted. The further material on record would show that the Appellant did not pursue the matter and though he was called for negotiation, he did not attend the same and by a letter dated 27.12.2004 he has withdrawn his offer in respect of the bid submitted by him. There is no material on record to show that subsequently the earnest money has been forfeited and therefore, the question as to whether the earnest money has been forfeited and if it is so, whether it is wrongful and whether the Appellant is entitled for refund of the earnest money can be decided only by settling the disputed questions of fact, which can be done only after leading the evidence before the competent civil Court. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot look into the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge relegating the writ Petitioner to the civil Court while dismissing the writ petition is justified and does not suffer from error, illegality as to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.