JUDGMENT N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. 1.Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2 . The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 . The first respondent/writ petitioner submitted a bid pursuant to the “Request for Proposal” ( hereinafter referred to as “RFP”) issued by the National Highways Authority for the development of the National Highways, namely, (i) Gorantala–Hindupur and (ii) Mudanur– B. Kothapalli. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, the opening of the bids was originally scheduled for 05.09.2023 and 19.12.2023. However, the appellants were unable to adhere to the said schedule and extended the validity of the tender on nearly seven occasions. In the meantime, the first respondent/writ petitioner received a letter dated 13.11.2024 seeking clarification, wherein it was stated that a complaint had been received alleging fabrication of documents by the first respondent/writ petitioner. 2.2 . At that stage, the first respondent/writ petitioner realized that, owing to an inadvertent error committed by its staff, certain mistakes had crept into the tender documents. Consequently, the first respondent/writ petitioner withdrew its bid even before the opening of the technical bid. It is, therefore, the contention of the first respondent/writ petitioner that the bid was withdrawn prior to the opening of the bids. However, despite such withdrawal, a show cause notice dated 13.11.2024 was issued by the appellants. The first respondent/writ petitioner submitted its reply on 19.11.2024. Thereafter, by order dated 03.03.2025, the appellants directed forfeiture of the bid security amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent/writ petitioner filed the above writ petition. 2.3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellants/respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. However, reliance was placed on Clause 4.1 of the RFP, which authorizes the appellants/respondents to forfeit and appropriate the bid security amount as damages, without prejudice to any other rights available to them. The clause further stipulates that the appellants/respondents need not establish or prove any actual loss or damage for effecting such forfeiture. 3 . The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions advanced on either side, held that the writ petition was maintainable, as at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 3 . The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions advanced on either side, held that the writ petition was maintainable, as at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge further held that, in the absence of any proof of actual loss or damage suffered by the appellants, the forfeiture of the bid security amount was unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the present writ appeal. 4 .The learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants submitted that the entire cause of action arose at Vijayawada. According to him, the tender was invited by the appellants, and the decision regarding forfeiture of the bid security under the terms of the RFP was also taken at Vijayawada. Therefore, no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was further contended that mere service of a notice upon a party within the jurisdiction of this Court would not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India also submitted that the terms and conditions governing the tender constitute a binding contract between the parties, and disputes arising out of such contractual obligations cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was contended that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following judgments: (i) Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs Utpal Kumar Basu and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 ; and (ii) Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd., and Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567 5 . Whereas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that even a small fraction of cause action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. In the present case, order has been communicated to him and bank guarantee has also taken from the bank situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of can entertain a Writ Petition. In the present case, order has been communicated to him and bank guarantee has also taken from the bank situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of can entertain a Writ Petition. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (I) Union of India and Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd. /b> reported in AIR 1973 SC 1098 (ii) Maula Bux Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1970 SC 1955 ; and (iii) M/s.Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd . Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 2321 5.1. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent that the first respondent withdrew his bid before his offer was accepted. Therefore, no concluded contract came into existence between the parties so as to bind them to its terms and conditions. Further, in order to forfeit the entire amount, the appellants ought to have established that they had suffered damages. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating that they suffered any damages, the entire security deposit cannot be forfeited. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the Writ Petition. 6 . In the light of the above submissions, the following issues arise for consideration in this Writ Appeal: (i) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition? (ii) Whether the Writ Court can adjudicate contractual disputes? 7 . Admittedly, the first respondent submitted bids for widening and strengthening of four lane of Gorantla to Hindupur section of NH-716G from km 120+300 (Design Chainage) to km 153=880 (Desingh Chainage) (Package-03) under NH(O) under Annual Plan 2022-23 on EPC mode in the State of Andhra Pradesh Annual Plan 2022-23 on EPC mode and also for Rehabilitation & Upgradation from 2 lane to four lane of Muddanur to B.Kothapalli Section of NH-716G from Km.0/000 to km.56/500 (56.500 km) in the State of Andhra Pradesh on EPC mode in Annual Plan 2021-22. The REP makes it clear that bids have been invited for the development of the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the bids are to be submitted online. The REP contains various clauses. One such clause is 1.2.4, which reads as follows: “ 1.2.4. The REP makes it clear that bids have been invited for the development of the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the bids are to be submitted online. The REP contains various clauses. One such clause is 1.2.4, which reads as follows: “ 1.2.4. A Bidder is required to submit, along with its BID, a BID Security of Rs.5,40,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crore and Forty Lakh) (the "BID Security"), refundable not later than 150 (One hundred & fifty) days from the BID Due Date, except in the case of the Selected Bidder whose BID Security shall be retained till it has provided a Performance Security and Additional Performance Security (if any) as per the provision of this RFP and LOA. BID Security shall be submitted in the form of Insurance Surety Bond, Account Payee Demand Draft, Banker's Cheque or Electronic Bank Guarantee (e-Bank Guarantee), Physical Bank Guarantee. The Insurance Surety Bond shall be verified from the specific portal created for this purpose. The e- Bank Guarantee shall be transmitted through SFMS Gateway to NHAI/MORTH/State PWD/NHIDCL/BROS Bank. The Bidders shall also make online payment towards Cost of Tender Document of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and GST for Rs. 9,000/- (Nine Thousand only) in Authority's designated bank account and also upload online payment receipt of the same. Details of designated bank account are as under: 8 . Section 2 deals with instructions to bidders and schedule of bids is also clearly mentioned in the said section. Opening of the technical bid was scheduled on 05.09.2023 and the validity of the bid is 120 days from bid due date. Clauses 2.20.4 and 2.20.5 read as follows: “ 2.20.4. The Authority shall be entitled to forfeit and appropriate the BID Security as Damages inter alia in any of the events specified in Clause 2.20.5 herein below. The Bidder, submitting its BID pursuant to this RFP, shall be deemed to have acknowledged and confirmed that the Authority will suffer loss and damage on account of withdrawal of its BID or for any other default by the Bidder during the period of BID validity as specified in this RFP. No relaxation of any kind on BID Security shall be given to any Bidder. 2.20.5. No relaxation of any kind on BID Security shall be given to any Bidder. 2.20.5. The BID Security shall be forfeited and appropriated by the Authority as damages payable to the Authority for, inter-alia, time cost and effort of the Authority without prejudice to any other right or remedy that may be available to the Authority under the bidding documents and/or under the Agreement, or otherwise, under the following conditions: (a) Deleted (b) If a Bidder engages in a corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice undesirable practice or restrictive practice as specified in Section 4 of this RFP. (c) Ifa Bidder withdraws its BID during the period of Bid validity as specified in this RFP and as extended by mutual consent of the respective Bidder(s) and the Authority; (d) In the case of Selected Bidder, if it fails within the specified/extended time limit by Authority - (i) to sign and return the duplicate copy of LOA; (ii) to furnish the Performance Security/Additional Performance Security (if any) as per Clause 2.21; or (iii) to sign the Agreement; 9 . The terms set out for submitting the bid are binding on the parties. The above conditions make it clear that the bidder by submitting its bid pursuant to this REP, shall be deemed to have acknowledged and confirmed that the authority will suffer loss and damage on account of withdrawal of its bid or for any other default by the bidder during the period of bid validity as specified in this RFP. Clause 2.20.5 makes it clear that if the bidder engages in corrupt, fraudulent, or coercive practices, the same will lead to forfeiture. Further, sub-clause (c) of Clause 2.20.5 provides that withdrawal of a bid by a bidder during the bid validity period specified in the RFP shall also lead to forfeiture. Once a person submits its bid in accordance with the terms and conditions, such terms are binding on the parties. Further, Section 6.1 of the RFP reads as follows: “The Bidding Process shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of India and the Courts at [New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction overall disputes arising under, pursuant to and/ or in connection with the Bidding Process.” 10 . Be that as it may, no doubt, the parties cannot restrict the jurisdictional issue. The fact remains that the contract was finalized in Andhra Pradesh. Be that as it may, no doubt, the parties cannot restrict the jurisdictional issue. The fact remains that the contract was finalized in Andhra Pradesh. The technical bid was scheduled to be opened on 05.09.2023. It is contended by the first respondent that although the time for opening the technical bid was fixed as 05.09.2023, the bid was not opened. However, it is the specific contention of the appellants that during that process itself, they discovered that the experience certificate had been fraudulently submitted by the bidder, viz., the first respondent. The first respondent had submitted an experience certificate from the Thanjavur Municipality. However, upon verification, it was found that no such work had been carried out by the first respondent. 11. Though the bid validity had been extended by the bidders up to 15.11.2024, on 13.11.2024 itself a show-cause notice was issued by the appellants, inter alia alleging that the first respondent had fabricated documents showing different dates of commencement, different dates of commissioning, and different years of payment, as if he had executed the work relating to the construction of bridges and formation of the Old Thiruvaiyar Road in the Thanjavur City Corporation area. 12. Upon verification, the appellants found that the bidder had submitted different information on two different dates. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on 13.11.2024, and a reply was given by the first respondent on 19.11.2024, wherein the submission of false information was not disputed. It was, however, specifically admitted as follows: “We regrettably submit that we were made aware of this inadvertent error committed, only upon receiving your letter mentioned above. We submit that this clerical error, unknowing committed at our tender section was due to inadequate supervision of our internal office matters. We are aware that it is not a valid excuse to be stated for this issue and we sincerely regret for putting ourselves in this position. We submit that this clerical error, unknowing committed at our tender section was due to inadequate supervision of our internal office matters. We are aware that it is not a valid excuse to be stated for this issue and we sincerely regret for putting ourselves in this position. In continuation of the same we humbly submit that we refrained from extending the validity of the bid for the work of "Widening and Strengthening to four lane of Gorantla -Hindupur section of NH-716G from km 120+300 (Design Chainage) to kim153+880 (Design Chainage) [Package-03] under NH(O) under Annual Plan 2022-23on EPC mode in the State of Andhra Pradesh Annual Plan 2022-23." We regretfully apologize for an error of this magnitude and have made all required changes in our management team to ensure best practices in future. As a small growing company, we have always strived and delivered our best in all our projects and we will ensure such matters are never allowed at our company and that stringent protocol are followed. For the reasons stated we kindly request you to consider our representation as the error was inadvertent.” 13 . The explanation offered by the first respondent clearly shows that they have not denied the submission of false information along with the bid. Though it is submitted that the proposal may be revoked at any time, it is relevant to note that it is not a mere proposal. The first respondent has made an offer to undertake certain work and has specifically bound itself under the terms of the contract, including forfeiture of the security amount. 14. If the bidder withdraws its bid during the period of bid validity as specified in the REP, or if the bidder is found to have engaged in corrupt practice by furnishing false information regarding the work said to have been carried out in the Thanjavur Corporation, such conduct is clearly contemplated as misconduct. This has not been denied by the bidder, viz., the first respondent, in its explanation. 15. Further, Clauses 2.20.4 and 2.20.5 deal with bid security, and the REP referred to above clearly states that the authority is entitled to forfeit the bid security as damages if the bidder engages in corrupt, fraudulent, coercive, or undesirable practices, or withdraws its bid during the period of validity. 15. Further, Clauses 2.20.4 and 2.20.5 deal with bid security, and the REP referred to above clearly states that the authority is entitled to forfeit the bid security as damages if the bidder engages in corrupt, fraudulent, coercive, or undesirable practices, or withdraws its bid during the period of validity. Therefore, it cannot now be contended that the security amount cannot be forfeited unless actual damages are established. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Another , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “9. .......There is no term in the contract which is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The Indian Contract Act merely provides that a person can withdraw his offer before its acceptance. But withdrawal of an offer, before it is accepted, is a completely different aspect from forfeiture of earnest/security money which has been given for a particular purpose. A person may have a right to withdraw his offer but if he has made his offer on a condition that some earnest money will be forfeited for not entering into contract or if some act is not performed, then even though he may have a right to withdraw his offer, he has no right to claim that the earnest/security be returned to him. Forfeiture of such earnest/security, in no way, affects any statutory right under the Indian Contract Act. Such earnest/security is given and taken to ensure that a contract comes into existence. It would be an anomalous situation that a person who, by his own conduct, precludes the coming into existence of the contract is then given advantage or benefit of his own wrong by not allowing forfeiture. It must be remembered that, particularly in government contracts, such a term is always included in order to ensure that only a genuine party makes a bid. If such a term was not there even a person who does not have the capacity or a person who has no intention of entering into the contract will make a bid. The whole purpose of such a clause i.e. to see that only genuine bids are received would be lost if forfeiture was not permitted. 10. There is another reason why the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained. The whole purpose of such a clause i.e. to see that only genuine bids are received would be lost if forfeiture was not permitted. 10. There is another reason why the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained. It is settled law that a contract of guarantee is a complete and separate contract by itself. The law regarding enforcement of an "on demand bank guarantee" is very clear. If the enforcement is in terms of the guarantee, then Courts must not interfere with the enforcement of bank guarantee. The Court can only interfere if the invocation is against terms of the guarantee or if there is any fraud. Courts cannot restrain invocation of an "on demand guarantee" in accordance with its terms by looking at terms of the underlying contract. The existence or non-existence of an underlying contract become irrelevant when the invocation is in terms of the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee stipulated that if the bid was withdrawn within 120 days or if the performance security was not given or if an Agreement was not signed, the guarantee could be enforced. The bank guarantee was enforced because the bid was withdrawn within 120 days. Therefore, it could not be said that the invocation of the bank guarantee was against the terms of the bank guarantee. If it was in terms of the bank guarantee, one fails to understand as to how the High Court could say that the guarantee could not have been invoked. If the guarantee was rightly invoked, there was no question of directing refund as has been done by the High Court.” 16. Therefore, it is the contention of the first respondent that since it withdrew its bid before acceptance, it has the right to seek return of the security amount. The technical bid was stated to have been opened on 05.09.2023, and the validity period was extended, as admitted by the first respondent. When the first respondent is bound by the terms of the bid and withdraws its bid during the validity period, the contractual terms will prevail. Further, it is also well settled that disputes relating to contracts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle has been settled in several decisions, including Kerala SEB Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil , reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 , State of UP Vs. Birdge & Roof Co. Further, it is also well settled that disputes relating to contracts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle has been settled in several decisions, including Kerala SEB Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil , reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 , State of UP Vs. Birdge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 and Bareilly Development Authority Vs. Ajai Pal Singh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 17. Therefore, we are of the view that the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and adjudicated upon the contractual dispute. Whether the appellants were at fault or whether the first respondent was at fault is a matter requiring evidence and could have been agitated only before a competent Civil Court. 18. A plain reading of the documents relied upon by the first respondent and others makes it clear that the contractual terms had been enforced by the authorities. Whether any fraudulent activity was committed by the first respondent is also a question of fact that can be established only through evidence and cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. 19. Therefore, the entertainment of a writ petition in a purely contractual matter is not maintainable. Though much emphasis has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. to contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction, there is no dispute that even a small fraction of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon that Court. However, the existence of such jurisdiction does not compel the High Court to adjudicate the matter on merits, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another , reported in AIR 2004 SC 2321 . In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S.S.Jain & Co. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126)” 20. Admittedly, in the present case, the impugned order was passed by the authorities at Vijayawada. The show-cause notice was considered and the consequential order was also passed at Vijayawada. Further, the REP was accepted and filed at Vijayawada. Therefore, merely because the writ petitioner received the impugned communication within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and furnished or extended bank guarantees through banks situated within such jurisdiction, the same would not, by itself, confer any compelling reason upon this Court to entertain the writ petition. Though a small fraction of the cause of action may have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, having regard to the nature of the contractual dispute involved and the disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication on evidence, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition. 21. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Single Judge are set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the first respondent to work out and establish its rights, if any, before the competent Civil Court by instituting appropriate civil proceedings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.