BHAGWAN SINGH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that due to efflux of time, his relief seeking cancellation of license has been rendered otiose and thus confined his writ petition only to the extent of forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.3,44,170/-, vide impugned order dated 31.8.09.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 31-8-09, the respondent No. 2 had not only terminated the petitioners licence, but had also forfeited the security deposit of Rs.3,44,170/-, which was deposited on 20/21 March, 2009. While challenging the forfeiture of the security deposit mentioned above, he submitted that the State had not suffered any loss so as to justify the forfeiture of the security money. In this regard he relied upon the provisions contained in Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872.