JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the list of eligible bidders displayed on March 18,1987 in connection with the auction proposed to be held by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division on March 19, 1987 for the realisation of toll tax on Shastri Bridge situate over river Ganga in the district of Allahabad. The petitioner asserts that as per the rules mentioned in the auction notice he had complied with all the formalities prescribed thereunder. Thus he had furnished, (i) a security of Rs. 1.5 lacs, (ii) a character certificate from the District Magistrate of Ballia, (iii) a solvency certificate for Rs. 20 lacs issued by the District Magistrate of Ballia, (iv) no dues certificate, and (v) an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner had not concealed any material fact and that the facts stated by him were true and correct. 2. Surprised by the non-inclusion of his name in the list of eligible bidders, the petitioner made enquiries which revealed that his name had been dropped from the list because of a letter dated March 17, 1987 received by the Executive Engineer, National Highway (respondent No. 2) herein from the Superintendent of Police, Ballia. The letter states that some investigations are going on against the petitioner by the district authorities at Mirzapur and till those investigations are completed it would not be proper to rely on the character certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further revealed from the counter affidavit of Sri A. D. Gera filed on behalf of the auctioning authority that the real reason for the omission of petitioners name was a letter of the District Magistrate dated March 18, 1987 which states that a complaint has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Ballia according to which the petitioner is facing Crime Cases Nos. 94 and 95 of 1987 under Section 8(l)(b) of the Explosives Act and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code at Mirzapur and that the matter is being enquired into through the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur. The letter then goes on to say that till this enquiry is completed the character certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner is being suspended. 3. The letter then goes on to say that till this enquiry is completed the character certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner is being suspended. 3. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has assailed the validity of this letter putting in abeyance the character certificate issued by him on March 4, 1987 inter alia on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the affidavits exchange between them it was evident and indeed not disputed by the respondents that the above letter of the District Magistrate, Ballia, dated March 18, 1987 was the basis for omission of the petitioners name from the list of eligible bidders. 5. For the petitioner, Sri Murli Dhar submitted that the District Magistrate, Ballia having issued a character certificate in favour of the petitioner on March 4, 1987 was not justified in putting the same in abeyance on the basis of certain adverse material or information received by him from the Superintendent of Police, Ballia and Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, without apprising the petitioner of that material and without affording him an opportunity to submit his version with regard to that information or material. Elaborating the submission, learned counsel urged that suspension of the character certificate had the effect of immediately rendering the petitioner ineligible to participate at the auction and thereby quite obviously exposing him to serious civil consequences. There was thus a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. 6. We find considerable merit in the above submissions. It cannot be disputed that the suspension of the character certificate immediately disabled the petitioner from participating at the auction. Production of character certificate is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right to participate at the auction. Putting the character certificate in abeyance unilaterally undoubtedly resulted in placing the petitioner in an irreversible position. It cannot be disputed that the suspension of the character certificate immediately disabled the petitioner from participating at the auction. Production of character certificate is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right to participate at the auction. Putting the character certificate in abeyance unilaterally undoubtedly resulted in placing the petitioner in an irreversible position. If the auction had taken place on March 19, 1987 as scheduled without the petitioners participating therein and the contract finalised pursuant thereto, the petitioner would have lost a very substantial contract leaving him with no remedy save, possibly, an entirely unpredictable and doubtful remedy by way of damages, even if eventually at the end of the enquiry the petitioner had been completely cleared of any blemish on his character relevant in the context of the rights to be settled at the auction. 7. Fortunately for the petitioner, however, the auction has been postponed and, according to the learned Standing Counsel, no date has yet been fixed. Further, the existing contract is valid up to May 31, 1987 and the new contract to be settled will come into effect only after May 31, 1987, 8. In this situation, we see no reason why compliance with the principles of natural justice without causing any irreparable loss to the respondents should not be insisted on. There are no exceptional circumstances inherent in the situation which may warrant exclusion of the rule of affording even post-decision opportunity. The District Magistrate, Ghazipur has already in his possession certain information mentioned in his letter dated March 18, 1987 regarding the petitioners alleged involvement in certain criminal activities. The petitioner has also been apprised of that information through the counter affidavit of Sri A. D. Gera. The petitioner can submit his representation before the District Magistrate, Ballia with regard to the material referred to in the latters letter dated March 18, 1987 as well as in the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Ballia annexed to the counter affidavit of A. D. Gera as Annexure C. A.-2 within a week from today. The District Magistrate, Ballia can thereafter examine the said material as well as the petitioners representation and pass appropriate orders within a week or ten days and determine whether the petitioner can be certified as possessed of good character. 9. The District Magistrate, Ballia can thereafter examine the said material as well as the petitioners representation and pass appropriate orders within a week or ten days and determine whether the petitioner can be certified as possessed of good character. 9. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner has concealed material facts and, therefore, no discretionary relief should be granted to him. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on various decisions. We have examined the averments made in the petition as well as those asserted in the counter affidavits and have no doubt whatever, that the petition cannot be thrown out on this ground. The petitioner has, in our opinion, not concealed any material fact. The petition accompanied by an affidavit verified on March 19, 1987 was presented on March 19, 1987. All such material which was in possession or within his knowledge was placed before the Court. In our opinion, the petitioner was not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, required to disclose any further fact material to the controversy involved in the petition. In the opinion of the petitioner he was possessed of good moral character and the action of the police against him at Mirzapur which had not till then resulted in his conviction was strictly not required to be mentioned in the petition. At any rate, its omission cannot result in the dismissal of the petition without going into merits on the ground of supposed suppression of material facts. 10. Sri V.B. Upadhyaya appearing for the private respondent, namely, Paras Nath & Co., submitted that the respondents were entitled to reject the petitioners application under clause (3) of the conditions of auction which requires the intending bidders to file an affidavit stating that the papers mentioned in conditions Nos. 1 to 2(c) as well as the facts stated therein are correct. It was urged that the certificate of the District Magistrate filed by the petitioner that no criminal case was pending against the petitioner clearly contained a wrong fact and the affidavit of the petitioner asserting to the contrary was thus clearly wrong and unreliable justifying the rejection of his claim. 11. We have examined the affidavit filed by the petitioner. It runs into three paragraphs and it merely stated that the papers submitted by him were correct and that nothing material had been suppressed or any fact wrongly stated. 11. We have examined the affidavit filed by the petitioner. It runs into three paragraphs and it merely stated that the papers submitted by him were correct and that nothing material had been suppressed or any fact wrongly stated. We do not find any facts stated in this affidavit which might be characterised as wrong or be regarded as suppression of material facts. It is, however, unnecessary to dilate or pronounce finally on this submission as the fact that the petitioners name was dropped from the list because of the suspension of the character certificate by the District Magistrate was conceded by the learned Standing Counsel. That being so, the auctioning authority shall have to reconsider the question whether the petitioner is eligible to participate at the auction in case the petitioners character is certified by the District Magistrate, Ballia after considering the petitioners representation because it is not possible for this Court to speculate on the effect of the suspension of the character certificate produced on the mind of the auctioning authority. 12. Before concluding, we must make it clear that it will be entirely for the District Magistrate to decide on the basis of the material which has been brought to his notice by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia and Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur as well as the representation which the petitioner shall file pursuant to this order against that information or material whether or not character certificate ought to be granted to, the petitioner. 13. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner shall submit his representation before the District Magistrate, latest within a week from today, along with a certified copy of this order as well as copies of the petition and affidavits filed by the parties. The District Magistrate shall thereupon pass appropriate orders on that representation by May 15, 1987. Meanwhile, whereas the auction in question may be held with leave to the petitioner to participate in the same contract in pursuance thereto shall not be finalised by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, till the District Magistrate, Ballia decides the petitioners representation. 14. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of the requisite charges within 24 hours.