In Brief
A citizen participated in a public auction for government plots after depositing security as required. His bid was accepted, but the government then added special terms not mentioned in the original auction notice. When the citizen refused these new terms and demanded return of his security deposit, the government forfeited it, claiming breach. The Supreme Court held that without an express forfeiture clause in the contract, the State had no legal right to forfeit the deposit. Material contract terms must be disclosed upfront, and unilateral additions are not binding. The court ordered return of the security deposit with interest, holding that the State must act honestly when dealing with citizens.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.