2026:HHC:8485 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3352 of 2026 Date of decision: 20.03.2026 Karan Mehan …Petitioner Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 6. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP No. 4903 of 2026 For the averments made in the application, the delay of 18 days in re-filing the petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CWP No. 3352 of 2026 3. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the forfeiture of the security deposit of the petitioner vide communication dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) and directions to refund the entire security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- deposited on 2 2026:HHC:8485 20.02.2024 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Further direction was sought with regard to Condition No. 14 of the detailed terms and conditions which mandates that automatic and total forfeiture is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative; and direction was sought to decide the representation dated 26.11.2025 by passing a reasoned speaking order. 4. A perusal of the order dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-3), sought to be impugned, would go on to show that the security amount of Rs. 40,000/- was forfeited on account of the fact that on 15.05.2024, the petitioner had been asked to take over possession of the canteen allotted to him at bus stand Amb within 7 days otherwise the amount would be forfeited in view of the terms and conditions No. 14. 5. The perusal of the terms and conditions would go on to show that the successful bidder had to execute the agreement within 10 days from the date of the approval accorded by the Chief Executive Officer, failing which the security deposit shall be forfeited. The said clause reads as under:- “The successful bidder shall have to executive agreement within a period of tend days from the date of approval accorded by the Chief Executive Officer failing which the security deposit shall be forfeited. The commencement of the agreement executed between HPCT&BSM&DA and licensee shall be attested by the appropriate authority of the area vi. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Executive Magistrate etc. The expenses of drafting, stamping and 3 2026:HHC:8485 Execution of rent agreement shall be borne by the licensee. The possession of shop/canteen shall be named over to the successful bidder after execution of agreement and completion of all codal formalities explained in this tender document.” 6. Apparently, the petitioner had offered a rate of Rs.9500/- per month for the said tender and it had been duly accepted being highest bidder and in pursuance of the same, he was required to take over the possession and run the canteen at the bus stand Amb but apparently on the said date petitioner filed a vague application for refund of the security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- 7. An argument is now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unwell and could not take over the possession of the canteen. There is nothing on record as such to show that any request was made for extension of time to the authorities which could have been considered. 8. The petitioner being satisfied, had never as such represented against the said forfeiture and it was only at a belated stage after period of almost 1 ½ years on 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-4), he sent the representation, now claiming a refund and challenging the terms and conditions of the contract as such and thereafter filed the present writ petition on the basis of the said representation. 4 2026:HHC:8485 9. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions and having participated in the tender process. On account of not having taken over the canteen, apparently the respondents were forced to again re- tender the canteen and therefore, the general public had been put to inconvenience on account of the act of the petitioner and the respondents to loss by the petitioner, who had offered highest amount of bid but failed to follow it up to its logical conclusion. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to call upon the respondents to file reply. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 20th March, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)