IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15758 of 2010 Mazarul Hossain, S/o Haji Makbool Hossain resident of village-Koriari, P.S.-Harishachandarpur, Dis-Malda, West Bengal ……………petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the General Manager North Frontier Railway, Malegaon, guwahati Assam. 2. the General Manager, North Frontier Railway Maligaon, guwahati Assam. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager ( works) North Frontier Railway, Katihar, Bihar. 4. The Senior Divisional Engineer, Old Malda, West Bengal. 5. The Senior Sectional Engineer, old Malda, West Bengal. 6. Klundan Shukla S/o Sri S.N. Shukla, resident of village- Samsi, Railway Quarter, Police Station-Rutna Dist- Malda ………….respondents. ----------- For petitioner:- M/s. Chordhary Shyam Nandan and Ajay Kumar,Advocates For Respondent no.1 to 5 :- Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ----------- 2. 21.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways. The petitioner seeks quashing of the auction sale of fishing rights in favour of the respondent no. 6 pursuant to the auction notice dated 30.7.2010 issued by the office of the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), North Frontier Railway, Katihar. The aforesaid auction notice issued on 30.7.2010 provided that an amount of Rs. 1,51,375/- being 50% of the 2 reserve price and another amount of Rs. 30,275/- being 10% of earnest money, total of Rs. 1,81,650/- had to be deposited by the person interested to participate in the auction sale on 19.8.2010 well in advance against lot in the shape of demand draft in favour of FA & CAO/N.F.Rly/MLG which should be submitted along with the quotation paper, i.e., Tender/Auction schedule issued by the competent authority concerned in sealed cover. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was going to the office of the DRM to submit the tender papers including the demand draft on 19.8.2010 at 11.00 AM, he was intercepted by the henchmen of respondent no. 6 at the entrance of the DRM building in Katihar to illegally stop the petitioner from presenting and submitting his quotation. It is also stated that the petitioner made efforts to raise objection before the authorities but the petitioner had been confined and his bag containing quotation and demand draft had been snatched away and therefore he encashed the draft on 20.8.2010. Thereafter on 21st and 22nd August, 2010 being weekend on which the office of the respondent-authorities was closed, on 23.8.2010 the petitioner reached the office of respondent no. 3 and lodged a complaint with a request to 3 make arrangement to accept his tender. From the aforesaid admitted facts it is evident that the petitioner complained before the respondent no. 3 that he was carrying a demand draft of Rs. 1,47,000/- and subsequently encashed the same but with the complaint letter dated 23.8.2010 he had enclosed photo copy of a demand draft of Rs. 49,000/- issued by the SBI, DRM Office Branch on 19.8.2010. From the aforesaid admitted facts it is evident that the petitioner has hopelessly failed in even proving that he got a demand draft prepared for the purpose for an amount of Rs. 1,81,650/- as per the requirement of the auction notice dated 30.7.2010 although he claimed to have got a demand draft for Rs. 1,47,000/- prepared. Even assuming that more than one demand draft was prepared, he had only enclosed photo copy of one draft of Rs. 49,000/- issued on 19.8.2010 along with his complaint dated 23.8.2010. It is also evident that the petitioner has got the said demand draft encashed on the very next day i.e., on 20.8.2010, the same having been issued by the SBI Branch, DRM Office; there can be no reason why the petitioner had not on that very day filed his complaint before the DRM 4 when he was very much present in the Branch of Bank located in or around the same premises. It is evident that the complaint dated 23.8.2010 filed by the petitioner is an afterthought and he does not appear to have been a genuinely interested person with the intention to participate in the auction as per the auction notice dated 30.7.2010. In view of the aforesaid, there does not appear to be any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)