Defaulting allottee cannot claim extension of time or challenge cancellation after repeated failure to deposit balance consideration.

The Petitioner participated in a 2022 tender issued by Respondent No. 3 (Nagar Palika Nigam Bilaspur) for land allotment.

She was the highest bidder for plot B/271 at Rs. 26,12,400/- and deposited 10% (Rs. 2,70,000/-) on 01.12.2022.

The Petitioner alleged that oral promises were made to level the land before final payment, which was not done.

Respondent No. 3 issued notices on 19.06.2025 and 08.08.2025 demanding the balance amount, warning of forfeiture.

Due to non-payment, Respondent No. 3 cancelled the allotment and forfeited the deposit via communication dated 03.12.2025.

The Petitioner challenged this cancellation, seeking a direction to decide her representation and allow time for payment.

1. Whether the cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the earnest money by the Respondent Authority was illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of the tender conditions.

2. Whether a defaulting allottee can claim an extension of time as a matter of right after the cancellation of a tender allotment.

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning contractual matters and tender conditions.

It held that judicial intervention is limited to cases demonstrating arbitrariness, mala fides, or violations of statutory provisions.

The court further upheld the principle of contractual adherence, noting that the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) regarding payment timelines and forfeiture are binding on the parties.

The Court found that the Petitioner remained in default for over two years, failing to pay the remaining 90% of the bid despite repeated notices in June and August 2025.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that possession was a prerequisite for payment, noting that the tender conditions required full consideration within a prescribed time.

It observed that the Respondent Authority acted strictly according to the tender terms.

The Court characterized the Petitioner’s conduct as lacking "due diligence and bona fides," as she only approached the Court after the re-tender process had initiated.

Since no arbitrariness or illegality was demonstrated in the Authority's adherence to the NIT, the Court declined to interfere.

The Court ruled that a defaulting allottee cannot seek an extension of time as a matter of right after a valid cancellation.

The prayer to set aside the forfeiture and seek further time for payment was denied.