1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2009 Devichand M. Jain ... Petitioner v/s. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Udaya Sankar Saudrala,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajinder Kumar,Advocate,for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 9th June,2009. P.C. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the successful bider at the auction which was held by the respondents herein. By communication dated 30.1.2009, the petitioner was informed that the competent authority had accepted the offer and had requested the petitioner to remit the fund to their Bank Account by way of DD and inform them accordingly. On 17.2.2009, the competent authority informed respondent No.3 that he was directed to convey that the acceptance offer for the said lots referred in the Acceptance letter dated 29.1.2009 has been kept in abeyance till further order. On 23.3.2009, the 2 petitioner was informed that his bid had been rejected and that the amount deposited be collected. 2. On 6.4.2009, the respondents invited fresh tenders by a notification published in “Nav Bharat Times” (Hindi) that the tenders were invited by the Respondent No.2 for the auction of the goods on 20/21.4.2009. The petitioner’s bid was in the sum of Rs.2.80 crores. The successful bidder’s bid at the auction held on 21.4.2009 was Rs. 3.41 crores. 3. Even though the fresh tender was invited on 6.4.2009, the petitioner did not protest against holding of the said auction nor participated in the said auction under protest. Apart from that fact we find that the Revenue has secured over Rs.60 lakhs than what the petitioner had bid. In these circumstances, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction. The petition is rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)