As per case facts, the Petitioner participated in a tender and furnished an EMD-BG. Respondent no.2 alleged a forged document and banned the Petitioner, leading Respondent no.1 to forfeit the ... EMD-BG. However, the Appellate Authority of Respondent no.2 later revoked the ban, effectively nullifying the forgery allegation. Subsequently, the Petitioner was awarded a fresh tender for the same work. Despite this exoneration, Respondent no.1 refused to refund the forfeited EMD-BG, prompting the Petitioner to file a Writ Petition. The question arose whether the High Court has jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving State instrumentalities when allegations of arbitrariness, fraud, or violation of natural justice are made, and whether the forfeiture of EMD was justified after the underlying fraud allegation was nullified. Finally, the High Court asserted jurisdiction, citing Supreme Court rulings that allow Writ Petitions against arbitrary State action in contractual matters, even with alternative remedies. The court found no justification for Respondent no.1 to retain the EMD-BG, as the basis for forfeiture (forgery/fraud) was dissipated by the Appellate Authority's exoneration. The court directed Respondent no.1 to refund the EMD-BG.