CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6265 of 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 07, 2011 Shahid .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Auction in regard to Yamuna Ghat falling in Block Chhachhrauli, for the year 2011-12 was held in the presence of District Development and Panchayat Officer, where the petitioner was declared successful with a bid of `17,05,000/-. This was stated to be the highest bid amongst 15 persons who participated in this auction. The petitioner has deposited this amount. It appears that a complaint was made in regard to serious irregularities committed during the conduct of the auction and on that basis the petitioner has been informed on 30.3.2011 and on 31.3.2011 not to proceed further pursuant to the auction. The petitioner has also been directed not to issue any receipt for the vehicles and cattle coming on Yamuna Ghat. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6265 of 2011 :{ 2 }: This is till further orders from the authorities. The petitioner has accordingly challenged this order through the present writ petition. On the basis of serious complaints received by Deputy Commissioner, the above action has been taken to stop the operation on the Yamuna Ghat. The petitioner has been told not to issue receipts till these complaints and irregularities are looked into. This apparently is not the final action which obviously would follow. The irregularities in the manner of conducting auction are apparent. Unknown newspaper, Hari Bhoomi, alone was approached for publishing the auction program through a letter. It is not even clear if the auction notice was published in this newspaper. Pamphlets were statedly circulated in the locality. This is not a fair notice of auction. On a complaint received by Deputy Commissioner, he has issued direction for staying further action on the basis of this auction. I find the action to be fully justified. Final action is yet to follow. The petitioner has only been told not to operate the ferry during the interregnum period. I do not find any justification to interfere in this order. The respondents are fully justified to investigate the irregularities and then take appropriate action. Dismissed. Because of the apparent irregularities, which are to be looked into, I am not inclined to consider the prayer of the counsel for issuing some time bound direction to decide the issue. April 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE