IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12569 of 2010 SHIV SHANKAR CHOUDHARY S/O LATE JIBACHH CHOUDHARY, R/O VILL.- BELHI, P.O. THARBITTA, P.S. KISHANPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL……………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENRAL MANAGER, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR, BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY (ENGINEER) III EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAHARSA…….RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : M/s Mahendra Pahtak, Nagendra Upadhyay, Maya Shankar Mishra and Ashwani Kr. Tiwary, Advocates. For the Railway : Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railway. This case is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for both the parties as the matter is urgent and pleadings are complete. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Divisional Engineer-III, East Central Railway, Samastipur vide his letter no. W/302/Machhiyari/M.E.III/W 4/126 dated 14.06.2010 by which he cancelled the auction with respect to the projects which were allotted to the petitioner after holding an open bid by the competent authority in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has deposited huge amount of 40 per cent of the bid amount along with security for which receipt was granted to him but without any notice or information to him, impugned order has been passed. 3. On the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and learned counsel for the respondents - 2 - submits that the impugned order has been passed by the authority concerned cancelling the earlier auction in favour of the petitioner after finding gross procedural irregularities and infirmities. It is also stated that the said authority has passed a reasoned order which is apparent from Annexure-4 of the writ petition itself in which it has been stated that earlier notices were not widely circulated and were issued giving much less than 30 days time for the auction and furthermore notices were not even published in newspapers before each and every deferred dates of auction as required by Rules, hence he had directed the authorities not to make any auction without making the notice published in newspapers. It is also stated that fresh auction notice as contained in Annexure-5 of I.A No. 7146 of 2010 has been issued without any irregularity and has also been accompanied by publication of the same in newspaper and hence, it is not fit to be set aside. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter as well as the averments of the parties, this court finds that the authority concerned was quite justified in passing the impugned order, keeping in view that such procedural irregularities and infirmities should not be tolerated for any undue benefit of some interested persons. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)