on record as to any steps being taken by the respondent to re-auction said site. In such circumstances, the theory of mitigating damages can be applied. The respondent was bound to take steps to re-auction the property and in re-auction if the respondent State did not receive any bidder or received the bidder for a less price, then they could have asked for short-fall in the amount of bid on re-auction from the petitioner. Said exercise was never conducted. It is stated that in the next year, the respondent had gone for the re-auction and no bid was received and now, after lapse of 7 years, is claiming remaining amount of Rs. 4,40,000/-. Same now would be impermissible. Of course, as far as the forfeiture of ¼th amount is concerned, respondents are within their right to forfeit the same and the same is rightly forfeited. However, as the respondents failed to take steps of re-auction of said site on lapse of 15 days, the respondents, after a lapse of 7 years, cannot turn around and claim the remaining amount on the ground that next year no bid was received. If the respondents would have gone for re-auction in the very same year on the default committed by the petitioner, in that case, if no bid was received, the respondents would have been justified in claiming the said amount from the petitioner.
