(1.) The Petitioner challenges the notice of a fresh auction issued by the Respondent on the ground that the auction of fishing rights was completed on 19.08.2011 when his bid being the highest was accepted. The re-auction is made on the account of the fact that subsequent to the conclusion of the auction process, the 5th Respondent is reported to have made an offer of Rs. 2,70,000/-, which was higher than the amount, which was accepted by the 4th Respondent. The 4th Respondent has not concluded the auction in favour of 5th Respondent but however, he has taken the offer of Rs. 2,70,000/-to be taken as the up-set price and posted the auction on 25.08.2011.
(2.) In the matter of public auction in relation to rights that fetches revenue for the State or its functionaries, just the fall of hammer will not complete the auction bid so long as the Rules provided for sanction from higher authorities for conclusion of the auction bids or prescribes stipulations for re-auction. Admittedly, fishery rights of sale are regulated by the Punjab Fisheries Rules, 1985. Rule 4 refers to the auction for grant of licence through public bidding and it also provides for an exceptional situation where the auctioning authority considers that the highest bid at the auction is not a good amount. In this case, the satisfaction of the auctioning authority has come through an offer made by yet another person for higher amount than what was bid on that day. The Petitioner has an apprehension that if the 5th Respondent does not participate in the auction on the following day and he has merely caused upsetting of the auction process, which was concluded already, then the benefit which he had obtained at the auction, which was held on 19.08.2011 would go a waste. The apprehension is reasonable and I, therefore, direct that in the event of 5th Respondent not participating and if there are No. bids at Rs. 2,70,000/-or any higher amount, the auction shall be concluded in favour of the Petitioner at the rate at which he had already offered on 19.08.2011. The auction proposed to be held on 25.08.2011 cannot, therefore, be stopped in the manner sought for by the Petitioner.
(3.) The writ petition is dismissed but the Petitioner will have the benefit of conclusion of the auction in his favour in the event of contingency mentioned above.