Forfeiture of auction bidder's deposit upheld where default in paying the balance price breached the sale conditions.

Forfeiture of a highest bidder's deposit after default in paying the balance sale consideration was treated as a consequence of breach of the auction terms, not as arbitrary or without authority. The bidder had participated with full knowledge of the notified conditions and failed to comply after emerging as the highest bidder. The Court found no illegality merely because the bidder later disputed the property description or because the properties were later sold for a higher price. On those facts, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted, and the forfeiture was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture of the amounts deposited by the highest bidder in the auction sale, on account of failure to pay the balance sale consideration, was illegal, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner participated in the auction with full knowledge of the notified terms and conditions and, after becoming the highest bidder, failed to deposit the balance amount. The forfeiture followed the default and was treated as a consequence of the bidder's own breach of the sale conditions. The Court held that no arbitrariness, unfairness, or want of authority was made out merely because the petitioner later disputed the property description or because the properties were subsequently sold at a higher price. The Court also held that the grievance did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was upheld and the challenge was rejected.

---