V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. - (1.)The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"In the aforesaid premises it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the cords of the case form the respondent and quash the illegal and arbitrary office Letter No.613/SO/Estate-I/2017 dated 27.02.2017 issued by respondent; and

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent to execute the license deed with the petitioner after removing the discrepancies pointed by the petitioner; and / or

(c) To pass any further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

(2.)The writ petition has been filed challenging communication dated February 27, 2017 issued by the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner, not to forfeit Earnest Money deposited by the petitioner at the time of bidding for the grant of license for Tourist Lodge.
(3.)The facts as noted from the writ petition are that the respondent on January 04, 2017 issued a public notice for eauction of NDMC tourist lodge near Ashoka Road and Jantar Mantar Road crossing, Janpath Lane behind Janpath Hotel, New Delhi. It is averred that the petitioner after noticing the public notice, took part in the e-auction process, which took place on the same day on the MSTC platform after registering itself on the MSTC portal. The petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs. 29, 04, 000/- as per clause 2 of the terms and conditions provided by the Estate Department of the respondent. According to the petitioner, after evaluation of all bids, the petitioner was declared successful being the highest bidder and accordingly, the NDMC issued a confirmation letter dated January 12, 2017. It is averred that the respondent along with the letter, had sent a draft license deed to be executed by the parties. The said license deed was having the figure of 17000 per square ft., as total built up area, which was contrary to the total area as notified in public notice and other offer/tender documents. The aforesaid discrepancies were duly notified by the petitioner vide its letter dated January 25, 2017 to the respondent. It objected to the false representation of area along with other discrepancies. According to the petitioner, as per the public notice, the total commercially usable area was 22592.46 square ft. against which bid was made by the petitioner. It is its case that 17000 square ft was advertised in the year 2016, therefore the area of 22592.46 square ft was prima facie false representation and thus liable to be clarified.