IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WP Nos. 19735, 19747, 19885,19903, 20008, 20112,20121,20171, 20245 and 20328 of 2004 1. WRIT PETITION NO : 19735 of 2004 Between: Kudula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Narasimha Murthy, R/o. Teeparu Village, Perveli Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Level Committee, rep. by its Chairman, West Godavari.District.. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District, at Eluru. 4 Sai Baba Reddy, S/o. Jagadhal Reddy r/o Pekeru, Eragavaram Mandalam, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court mayl be pleased to Issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proceedings ROC.No.5102/2004, A3(pts) confirming the auctions held on 20.10.2004 in favour of fourth respondent in pursuant to the Notification No.5102/04, dt. 03.10.2004 for West Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of Rule 9 (B) (4), Rule 9(H)(1) to Rule 9 (H) (4) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. For the Petitioner: Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for MS.K.N.VIJAYA LAXMI, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.4: Sri C.V.MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 2. WRIT PETITION NO : 19747 of 2004 Between: Kandula Ganapathy Rao, S/o. Narasimha Murthy, R/o. Teeparu, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Level Committee, Rep. by its Chairman, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Eluru. 4 Sai Baba Reddy, S/o. Jagadhal Reddy, R/o. Pekeru, Eragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or Writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in proceeding to confirm the auctions held on 20-10-2004, in favour of fourth respondent for entire District of West Godavari District and not confirming the auction held on 20-10-2004 in favour of petitioner for Polavaram Reach, West Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(B) (1) and Rule 9(H) (1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 For the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA , Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.4: SRI C.V.MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 3. WRIT PETITION NO : 19885 of 2004 Between: 1. Kotha Venkata Venu Gopal Krishna Murthy, S/o.Sri Jagga Rao, R/o Peddavam, West Godavari Dist. 2 M.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Sri Narayana rao, R/o.Ramannapalem, West Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, West Godavari District, rep.by its Chairman. 2 The District Panchayat officer-cum-Member Convener, District Level Committee for sand auctions, West Godavari Dist. Eluru. 3 The District Collector, West Godavari Dist, W.G. 4 Joint Collector, West Godavari Dist., Eluru. 5 V.Sai Baba Reddy, S/o.Jaldareddy, R/o.Pekeru of Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 to 4 in conferring leasehold rights in favour of the 5th respondent, the highest bidder who had bid for all the 22 sand reaches of river Godavari in West Godavari district as a single package, pursuant to the auction notification dated 3-10-2004, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, ultra vires the rules of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 1-1-2001, and in violation of Articles 14 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the proceedings in Roc.No.5102/ 2004, A3(pts), dated 25-10-2004, confirming the leasehold rights for quarrying sand in reaches of river Godavari in West Godavari district, in favour of the 5th respondent. For the Petitioner: Sri Ramesh Ranganatham, Senior Counsel for MR.R.SUDHEER , Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.5: SRI C.V.MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 4. WRIT PETITION NO : 19903 of 2004 Between: The Venkateswara Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd., (Regd.No.343F) Bhupathivari Street, 4th ward Narsapur-534 275, West Godavari District, rep. by its President Mr. Bh.V.V.Satyanarayana. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P, rep. by its Principal. Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Dept., Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj Rural & Employment Government of A.P., Government Insurance Bldgs, Tilak road, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The District Level Auction committee for Sand West Godavari District, Eluru, Rep. by its Convenor, District Panchayat Office. 4 The District Collector & Magistrate, W.G.District, Eluru. 5 Sri V. Saibaba Reddy Pekeru, Irgavaram Mandal, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue a direction or an order, or a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, a) calling for records pertaining to proceedings in Roc.No.5102/2004, A3 (Pts) Dt. 25.10.2004 and quash or set-aside the same declaring it as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. b) Consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to confer the right of quarrying sand/collection of Seignorage fee in Koderu Reach between Kms. from 30.00 to 45- 400, 44/6-8, on the writ petitioner society.. For the Petitioner:MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.5: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 5. WRIT PETITION NO : 20008 of 2004 Between: Vadapalli Boatsmen Labour Contract cooperative Society, rep by President, Pragada Nageswara Rao, S/o Krishna Rao R/o Vadapalli (V), Kovvuru Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Industries & commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The District Level Committee, rep by Chairmen, West Godavari District, Eluru 3 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Eluru. 4 Sai Baba Reddy, S/o Jagadhal Reddy R/o Pekeru Eragavaram Mandalam, West Godvari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or Writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus, declaring the action of the Respondents in confirming the auctions held on 20-10-20004, in favour of fourth respondent for entire District of West Godavari District in Proceedings Roc. NO. 5102/2004 A3(Pts), on 25-10-2004 and not confirming the auction held on 20-10- 2004 in favour of petitioner society for Vadapalli Reach, West Godvari district as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(B)(1) and Rule 9(H)(1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 For the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.4: SRI C.V.MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 6. WRIT PETITION NO.20112/2004 Between: Kovvuru Boatsmen Co-operative Society, represented by its President, S.S. R.K.Prasad, S/o Subbaiah, aged 48 years, resident of Kovvur (v) and (M), West Godavari District. ..Petitioner. and 1. The Government of A.P. represented by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Level Committee represented by its Chairman, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Eluru. 4. Sai Baba Reddy, S/o Jagadhal Reddy, aged about 40 years, resident of Pekeru, Eragavaram Mandalam, West Godavari District. ..Respondents. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in confirming the auctions held on 20-10-2004, in favour of fourth respondent for entire district of W.G.District in proceedings ROC.No. 5102/2004 A3(pts), on 25.10.2004 and not confirming the auction held on 20-10-2004 in favour of Petitioner Society for Kovvuru Reach, W.G. District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(B) (1) and Rule 9(H) (1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. For the Petitioner: Smt. N. Shoba, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 3: Govt., Pleader for Panchayat Raj For the Respondent No.4: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, Advocate 7. WRIT PETITION NO : 20121 of 2004 Between: Mullapudi Srinivas Kumar Choudary, S/o. Krishna Rao, R/o. Purushothapalli, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Level Committee, Rep. by its Chairman, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Wesgt Godavari, Eluru. 4 Sai Baba Reddy, S/o. Jagadhal Reddy, R/o. Pekeru, Eagavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in proceeding to confirm the auctions held on 20-10-2004, in favour of fourth respondent for entire District of West Godavari District and not confirming the auction held on 20-10-2004 in favour of petitioner for Pandalaparru Reach, West Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(B) (1) and Rule 9(H)(1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 For the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.4: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 8. WRIT PETITION NO : 20171 of 2004 Between: Venkateswara Boatsmen and Sand Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society, rep by its President, P. Srinivas, S/o. Sri Rama Rao, aged 35 years, R/o. Aurangabad, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Level Committee, rep by its Chairman, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Eluru. 4 Sai Baba Reddy, S/o. Jagadhal Reddy, R/o. Pekeru, Eragavaram Mandalam, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in confirming the auctions held on 20-10-2004 in favour of the fourth respondent for entire District of West Godavari District in proceedings ROC No.5102/2004 A3(PTS) on 25-10-2004 and not confirming the auction held on 20- 10-2004 in favour of Petitioner Society for Aurangabad Reach, West Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(b) (1) and Rule 9(H)(1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. For the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT For the Respondent No.4: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 9. WRIT PETITION NO : 20245 of 2004 Between: The Narasapuram Sand Quarry Boatsmen and Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., rep., by its President Pemmadi Narasimha Rao, s/o P.Venkata Swamy, aged about 60 years, r/o Ankanivaripalem, 17th Ward, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Level Committee, rep., by its Chairman, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Eluru. 4 Sai Baba Reddy, s/o Jagadhal Reddy, r/o Pekeru, Eragavaram Mandalam, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in confirming the auctions held on 20-10-2004, in favour of fourth respondent for entire District of West Godavari District in Proceedings ROC No.5102/2004 A3(Pts.) on 25-10-2004 and not confirming the auction held on 20-10- 2004 in favour of petitioner society i.e., the Narasapuram sand Quarry Boats Men and Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., for Reach No.21, Chinchiwada and Reach No.22, Y.V.Lanka, Badava & Narasapuram, West Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(B)(1) and Rule 9(H)(1), A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. For the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.4: SRI C.V.MOHAN REDDY, Advocate 10. WRIT PETITION NO : 20328 of 2004 Between: Boatsmen & Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd., Rozole, E.G.District, rep. by its President R. Venkateswarlu, Aged 45, S/o. Narayana Swamy, R/o. E.G.district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Level Committee, rep. by its Chairman, W.G.District, Eluru. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari at Eluru. 4 V. Saibaba Reddy, S/o. Jagadhal Reddy, R/o. Pekeru, Ergavaram Mandal, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in confirming the auctions held on 20.10.2004, in favour of the fourth respondent for entire district of West Godavari District in Proceedings ROC.No.5102/2004 A3(pts), dt. 25.10.2004 and not confirming the auctions held on 20.10.2004 in favour of the petitioner Society i.e., the Narsapuram Sand Quarry Boats Men and Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited for Reach No.21, Chinchinada and Reach No.22, Y.V.Lanka, Badava & Narasapuram, W.G. District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rule 9(B)(1) and Rule 9 (H)(1) of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966. For the Petitioner: MR.N.LAKSHMIDHAR, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. For the Respondent No.5: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, Advocate The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.NOS. 19735, 19747, 19885, 19903, 20008, 20112, 20121, 20171, 20245 and 20328 of 2004 ORDER: All these writ petitions have been heard together since they have common features and common issues were raised. The factual backdrop of the controversy relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated thus: The District Level Committee, West Godavari District notified sand bearing areas and issued Auction Notification Nos.4040/04, 5101/04 and 5102/04 dated 03-10- 2004 proposing to conduct auction to the sand bearing reaches – reach wise, package wise and district wise respectively on 20-10-2004. All the petitioners have participated in the auction on the said date. Firstly auctions were conducted to the district package, i.e. 22 reaches as a single package, 22 reaches as 6 packages next and individual reaches at the last. All the 22 reaches as a single package fetched a bid amount of Rs. 2,73,50,000/-, whereas 6 packages fetched Rs.1,87,63,639/- and reach wise fetched Rs.2,80,98,692/-. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 9 (H) (1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) issued in G.O.Ms.No.1, Industries and Commerce dated 01-01-2001, bidders have to pay 25% of the knocked down amount on the immediate next working day, i.e. on 23-10-2004 since 21st and 22nd were holidays. Auctions were knocked down in respect of 18 bidders where 22 reaches were independently auctioned. Since only 8 bidders have come forward to pay 25% of the knocked down amount and the remaining bidders have not turned up, the bidder who offered 36,50,000/- against the minimum amount/upset price of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Parikkilanka reach, submitted a letter dated 23-10-2004 stating that he participated in the auction and his companion raised bid was upto Rs.36,50,000/- without his knowledge and expressed inability to pay the knocked down amount and requested for cancellation. As the individual bidders have not come forward to deposit 25% of the knocked down amount till 5.00 P.M. on 23-10-2004, the District Level Committee, after reviewing the matter, called upon the highest bidder in respect of the district package – 4th respondent in W.P.No.19735 of 2004 whether he could enhance the bid amount equal to the amount of all the 22 reaches independently fetched. 4th respondent accepted the same and deposited 25% of the knocked down amount on 24-10-2004. On such deposit, confirmation was issued in his favour treating all the reaches as District Package, which led to filing of the present writ petitions. Petitioner in W.P.No.19735 of 2004, who is the second highest bidder of the District Package wrote a letter on 24-10-2004 stating that 4th respondent failed to deposit 25% of the knocked down amount and that he is ready to deposit the same and requested the District Level Committee to issue confirmation order. It is contended that there is no procedure for negotiations under the Rules calling the highest bidder; the committee has to either confirm the same or cancel the auction. Rule 9 (B) (2) of the Rules contemplates for conducting auction either reach wise or village wise. Hence, the very auctioning of entire district is arbitrary and without any competency, which was done only to benefit the 4th respondent. When petitioner was willing to enhance the bid amount to Rs.2,90,000,00/- he should have been called for negotiations along with the fourth respondent, but he was not called and the entire procedure adopted is arbitrary and illegal. Once the highest bidder failed to deposit 25% of the knocked amount, the petitioner being the next highest bidder should have been called to deposit the same as per Rule 9-H (4). The petitioners in WP No.19885/2004 state that they have participated in the tender process by submitting sealed tenders for reach Nos.5 and 15 offering Rs.19,15,000/- and Rs.10,75,000/- against the minimum amount/upset price fixed at Rs.12 lakhs and 5 lakhs respectively. Accordingly, they deposited 25% of the minimum bid amount towards EMD along with tender applications. In view of the procedure adopted in calling for bids by three different methods, unless the total bid amount of all 22 reaches, which were auctioned individually, fetched highest revenue, the petitioners were not entitled for confirmation. Though 22 reaches were notified for auction, bids were received for 18 reaches only amounting to Rs. 2,80,98,692/- and if the 4 reaches which were left over are put in auction subsequently, the amounts would likely to be enhanced, which will fetch highest revenue. Instead of confirming bids in favour of the highest bidders who have participated in the said method of all 22 reaches being auctioned individually, adopting the method of individual reaches informing the highest bidders to deposit the amount, it is not possible for the petitioners to deposit 25% of the knocked down amount. Failure to intimate the petitioners both regarding the method adopted and deposit of 25% of the knocked down amount is in violation of principles of natural justice. In spite of the same, the second petitioner approached the official respondents on 21-10-2004 and 23-10- 2004 and expressed his intention to deposit 25% of the knocked down amount after adjusting EMD deposit. The petitioners were informed that the Committee has not taken any decision to adopt which method. All of a sudden the official respondents adopted the first method, namely, to lease out all the reaches, as one unit, which is arbitrary and illegal. In the absence of petitioners and others participants being informed about the intention to adopt the method, whether reaches were auctioned individually defaulting in deposit of the knocked down amount cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Though the first petitioner deposited the bid amount, respondents refused to receive the bid amount of the second petitioner, who is the highest bidder. The petitioner in WP Nos.19747/2004 states that he was the highest bidder for reach No.1 ie., Polavaram reach offering Rs.15 lakhs as against the minimum amount/upset price of Rs.2 lakhs. He further states that he approached the authorities on 21-10-2004 with DDs but they refused to receive the same stating that the District Level Committee is interested in confirming the bid of the fourth respondent. In the absence of any procedure for negotiations with the fourth respondent, awarding contract to him is arbitrary and illegal. WP Nos. 20008/2004, 20112/2004, 20121/2004, 20171/2004, 20245/200 and 20328/2004 and WP No.19903/2004 are filed by Boatmen Co-operative Societies a n d Fishermen Cooperative Societies respectively. They state that minimum amount/upset price fixed was abnormally high and without any basis and all societies tendered their bids. They further state that they were given benefit to deposit the bid amount in four equal quarterly instalments and 10% concession on the highest bid/tendered amount offered in the auction hall. Adopting the method to club 22 reaches as one unit and accepting the bid of the fourth respondent stating that all the reaches are treated as one unit would deprive the Boatmen Cooperative Societies of their legitimate rights to the concessions extended to them. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No. 19735/2004 urged that the fourth respondent who is the highest bidder of the District package failed to deposit the knocked down amount on the next working day as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 9-H. In such an event, the authorities have to issue confirmation order in favour of the second highest bidder as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 9-H. When the authorities negotiated with the fourth respondent to increase the bid amount, the same should be extended to other participants of the District Package. When the petitioner made a representation on 24-10-2004 pointing out non-deposit of 25% of the knocked down amount by R-4 and he being the second highest bidder, his bid should be considered, instead of considering the claim of the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 4 accepted the deposit of 25% of the knocked down amount of the fourth respondent, who admittedly deposited the same after the specified date on his agreeing to increase the bid amount. In the absence of any provision for negotiations either in the Rules or in the notification, negotiating with the fourth respondent and awarding contract is arbitrary and illegal in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. M/S. KAMADHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES . Sri Ramesh Ranganatham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.19885/2004 contends that against the minimum amount/upset price fixed at Rs.12 lakhs and 5 lakhs for reach Nos.5 and 15 respectively, the petitioners 1 and 2 offered Rs.19,15,000/- and Rs. 10,25,000/- and the first petitioner deposited 25% of the knocked down amount on intimation. Since there was no intimation to the second petitioner he has not deposited. If there is any deviation from the rules notified, entire process of tender-cum-auction will become invalid and the authorities have to notify afresh and fresh auction should be conducted. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9-B, the District Committee is competent to club or sub-divide reaches wherever necessary. Once the individual reaches fetch highest amount, the authorities should have proceeded to award contracts to the highest bidders and finalise the same as per the notification issued. Once Rules contemplate payment of 25% of the knocked down amount on the next working day, the amount deposited by the fourth respondent is not in tune with the sub-rule (1) of Rule 9-H. Every tenderer shall be eligible to participate in the auction only after he obtains hall ticket from District Panchayat Officer as per rule 9-D(v)(a). Announcement in the auction hall that all reaches are auctioned does not arise unless the highest bid amount is known. When the petitioners specifically pleaded that District Level Committee to take a