In Brief
The appellant bid for a government nazul plot in a public auction, depositing Rs 3 lakhs as security. After his bid was accepted, the State unilaterally imposed four additional special conditions not mentioned in the original public notice. The appellant refused these surprise conditions and requested return of his security. The State forfeited the security money instead. The Court held that without an express forfeiture clause in the public notice, the State had no power to forfeit security. Moreover, unilaterally imposed conditions after acceptance are not binding. The appellant had not breached any term; the State had. The Court allowed the appeal and decreed refund of Rs 3 lakhs with 9% interest from February 1996, criticizing the State for not acting as an honest person in its dealings with the citizen.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.