ORDER
1. The respondents issued a notice for auction of the right to collect tolls over Shastri Bridge at Allahabad. One of the conditions in the auction notice was that the bidder had to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lac fifty thousands), as, earnest money which was to be refunded if his bid is not accepted. The petitioner in order to participle in the said auction deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 (One lac fifty thousands) as earnest money through a Demand Draft of the State Bank of India. "The petitioner participated in the auction but his bid was not the highest. The bid of the highest bidder was accepted which was communicated to him by letter dated 14-7-1983. When the petitioner's bid was not accepted he made an application on 20-8-1983 before the respondents for refund of the earnest money deposited by him in accordance with the term and condition of the auction notice. The earnest money not having been refunded to the petitioner he made another application on 5-9-1983 but without any result. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund earnest money deposited by him.
2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. Respondents have also filed supplementary counter affidavit, in para 4 of which it has been alleged that after the highest bidder declined to accept the contract for collection of the toll, petitioner's bid being the second highest, was accepted. It has been alleged by the respondents that acceptance of petitioner's bid was communicated to him vide letter dated 15-10-1983. In the rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits the petitioner has denied the receipt of any such letter and also its knowledge.
3. In the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated by the respondents that the aforesaid letter dated 15-10-1983 which was sent to the petitioner by registered post returned undelivered and thereafter the District Magistrate required the Tehsildar to serve it on the petitioner. Tehsildar deputed a peon to serve that order on the petitioner personally. The peon has submitted a report which has been filed as annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit, according to which when the peon went to the house No.3/9A, G.T. Road, he did not find petitioner or any member of his family and on the other hand the house was being occupied by a Bengali family, who informed him that the petitioner has gone to Punjab. Thereupon he pasted the order dated 15-10-1983 on the gate of the said house. Treating it as sufficient service of the order dated 15-10-1983 on the petitioner, the respondents have forfeited the security.
4. From the perusal of the averments of the counter and supplementary counter affidavits it is quite clear that the order dated 15-10-1983 was not served on the petitioner and he has no knowledge of it. Pasting of the order at the gate of the house in which the petitioner or the members of his family do not resides is no service. Only mode left to the respondents to serve the said order dated 15-10-1983 on the petitioner was by publication in the newspaper which was not done. That apart, after the bid of the highest bidder was accepted petitioner vide letter dated 20-8-1983 has asked the respondents to refund his earnest money. No action having been taken on it he sent another application on 5-9-1983 for refund of the earnest money, failing which, petitioner stated, that the legal action will be taken against them. By these two letters the bid of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
5. According to the terms of the auction notice, the respondents are to refund the earner money to the person whose bid is not accepted. In the instant case petitioner's bid, not being the highest, was not accepted. On the other hand the bid of the person whose bid was the highest, was accepted but when the highest bidder refused to accept the contract, the bid of the petitioner which was the second highest, is said to have been accepted and communicated by letter dated 15-10-1983 but the petitioner did not receive the above letter and has no knowledge about the the acceptance of his bid. As the petitioner has no knowledge of acceptance of his bid and no contract was executed between the petitioner and the government for collecting the toll over the Shastri Bridge, the respondents are bound to refund the earnest money to the petitioner.
6. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 1,50,000.00 (One lack fifty thousand only) to the petitioner with 12% interest per annum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before them. The 12% interest would be counted from 1st August, 1983.
7. Petition allowed.