MANISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties on admission.

(2.) Petitioner, however, is claiming relief of interest at the rate of 18% on the security amount of Rs.59,47,000/- which was lying deposited with the Authorities for almost two years and forty-six days. Indeed, the amount is quite substantial, but, the question is: whether relief as claimed can be granted to the petitioner. It is fairly accepted by the petitioner that there is nothing in the tender notice pursuant to which the petitioner participated in the auction process in the year 2013, to indicate that if agreement cannot be executed for whatever reason, the amount deposited by the petitioner would be refunded to him along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. or any other rate of interest.

(3.) In the present case, as noticed earlier, it was due to the inability of the petitioner to obtain environmental clearance from the appropriate Authority, the execution of agreement in favour of the petitioner could not be effectuated. Had the petitioner obtained such clearances, within the time specified in the tender notice, issued in the year 2013, the Authorities would certainly have favoured the petitioner by execution of agreement for the lease period specified in the tender notice.