IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 11686 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.8.2009 M/s Unicon Minerals and Mining Private Limited. ......Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Shivani Sehgal, Advocate, for petitioner. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of declaration that the bid of respondent No.8 was the highest in the auction held on 30.7.2009. Further direction is for protection of bidders in the auction to be held on 6.8.2009 at Yamuna Nagar. 2. As regards the first prayer, the case of the petitioner is that the auction was not fairly conducted. The petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs.13.06 crores but after fall of hammer, respondent No.8 gave still higher bid, which was accepted. The petitioner is now willing to give still higher bid. 3. This being disputed question of fact, we do not find it appropriate to determine the issue in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that these grievances have been put forward in its complaint and letter dated 31.7.2009 and 2.8.2009 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) and the same may be taken into account by the confirming authority before C.W.P.No. 11686 of 2009 [2] accepting the bid. There can possibly be no objection to such a prayer. 4. The confirming authority, who is said to be the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Mines and Geology, may consider the objections of the petitioner before the bid is confirmed if the petitioner provides a copy of this order to the said authority, before confirming the bid. 5. As regards the second prayer, it is stated that to conduct a fair auction, it is necessary to permit all the bidders to participate and apprehension of the petitioner is that its representative may not be allowed to participate in the auction. This again, being a disputed question of fact, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. It is for concerned authorities to look into such matters, if raised by the petitioner or any other aggrieved party. 6. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 5, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No C.W.P.No. 11686 of 2009 [3]