Earnest Money Deposit forfeiture and refund dispute dismissed after petitioner skipped designated Refunds Branch process first

The dominant issue was whether the HC should adjudicate a challenge to forfeiture/non-refund of Earnest Money Deposit despite the petitioner not first approaching the respondent's designated Refunds Branch. The HC held that, where an appropriate internal authority exists for processing refund/forfeiture grievances and the petitioner has not invoked that remedy, the writ petition does not warrant adjudication on merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed of as nothing survived for consideration.

---

---

The petition challenged non-compliance with an order dated 28 March 2022 passed inter partes, specifically regarding the "forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit ['EMD']". The respondent stated, on instructions, that the petitioner had not approached the "appropriate authority in the Refunds Branch" for redress. It was submitted that if the petitioner files "a fresh application in respect of the prayers as made" before the competent authority, the application "shall be duly taken into consideration and disposed of within a period of two weeks therefrom." This undertaking was "recorded and accepted" by the Court. In light of this assurance and the availability of an administrative remedy through the competent refunds authority, the Court held that "nothing would further survive on the petition" and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

---