IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.873 of 2006 Kameshwar Sah, S/O Sri Triveni Sah, R/O Village Dumarwana, P.S. Bairginia, district Sitamarhi .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through it’s Asstt. Divisional Engineer, Narktiaganj, East Central Railway 2. Divisional Engineer – II, East Central Railway, Samastipur 3. Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur .. Respondents **** For the petitioner .. Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha, Adv. For the Union of India .. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Adv. **** /5/ 05.05.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Railway. 2. This application was filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to hand over the fishing right to the petitioner by making settlement with him in terms of auction notice bearing no. SME/Nakai/03/2005/Machhari, dated 18.11.2005. Petitioner’s case is that on 18.11.2005 a notice was published by the Divisional Engineer, Narkatiaganj, inviting applications for participation in the bid for taking settlement of jalkar. The auction was going to take 2 place on 19.12.2005. The petitioner deposited the advance money amounting to Rs.50,000/- and participated in the auction and he came out as a successful bidder being the highest bidder in this auction. In terms of the notice the petitioner was required to deposit twenty per cent of the bid amount as security on the date of auction itself. This was deposited by him. He was further required to deposit forty per cent on each settlement year. The settlement was for three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of petitioner being a successful bidder and depositing the security money, the railway authorities were not executing an agreement for settlement. On account of such delay he was facing loss of money on each day. Another grievance is that respondents instead of executing agreement with the petitioner, again, came out with an auction notice on 25.01.2008 ignoring the earlier bid in which the petitioner was the successful bidder and has already deposited an amount of Rs.2,26,200/-. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed stating that no irregularity or illegality has been done rather first auction was not approved by the railway authorities on account of the 3 highest bid amount being too low than the previous settlement amount. It has also been stated that Annexure 1, which is the auction notice provides that any auction will be legal only when it is approved by the competent authority. As per Clauses 6 and 7 of the notice, the railway administration has reserved it’s right either to approve or disapprove the settlement. Since, auction was not approved fresh notice for auction was issued. Petitioner was also asked to participate, which he did not prefer to do, as such, settlement was made in favour of third party, but, on account of the stay order passed in this writ application and the contempt proceeding being initiated for it’s violation, settlement was subsequently cancelled. 4. Considering the fact that in the auction notice itself there is a provision that in case of his approval of the auction by higher authority, it can be cancelled, the act of the respondents can not be termed as illegal and arbitrary. The period for settlement was for three years which has now expired on 31.03.2008. In this circumstance, the only relief which can be allowed to the petitioner is that the money deposited by him should be refunded by the respondent 4 authorities to the petitioner along with five per cent interest per annum. The money deposited by the petitioner with five per cent interest be refunded within three weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. The railway administration can publish fresh auction notice for settlement of the jalkar and the petitioner, if so likes, may participate. 5. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )