JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition relates o the giving of a contract for toll tax collection tights on Parvati Bridge in Dholpur District. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Dholpur issued a notification in Nav Bharat Times dated 23rd March, 1988, whereby it was notified that auction of toll tax collection rights on Parvati Bridge in Dholpur District would be held on 12th April, 1988. According to the said notification, the minimum amount of bid was kept at Rs. 2,50,000/-. In accordance with the said notification, the auction was held on 12th April, 1988. The petitioner participated in the said auction and he gave a bid for Rs. 2,59,000/-. which was the highest bid. In accordance with the terms of the auction notice the petitioner deposited Rs. 25,900/-, being 10% of the amount, on the same day. The case of the petitioner is that on 16th April, 1988. the Toll Auction Committee submitted its report to the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Bharatpur wherein it was mentioned that the average collection per month of toll tax from the bridge is Rs. 10,000/- and the expenses on collection per month work out to Rs. 1,67,000- By order (Annx. 4) dated 29th April,1988. the Executive Engineer. PWD Dholpur informed the petitioner that the highest bid of the petitioner has been rejected by the Superintending Engineer. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29th April, 1988, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. A notice was issued to the respondents requiring them to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted and in response to the said notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. We have beard Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents. 4. Shri Mehta has invited our attention to para 6 of the terms and conditions of the auction issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dholpur, which have been filed as Annx. 2 with the writ petition. The said para 6 reads as under: "6. The auction committee/the Government reserves the right to accept/not to accept the highest bid without assigning any reasons therefore." 5. The submission of Shri Mehra is that under para 6 only Auction Committee or the State Government is empowered to accept or not to accept the highest bid. The said para 6 reads as under: "6. The auction committee/the Government reserves the right to accept/not to accept the highest bid without assigning any reasons therefore." 5. The submission of Shri Mehra is that under para 6 only Auction Committee or the State Government is empowered to accept or not to accept the highest bid. In the present case the Auction Committee did not take a decision not to accept the highest bid of the petitioner and there is no decision of the State Government in this regard. Shri Mehta has urged that the Superintending Engineer who has taken the decision not to accept the bid of the petitioner was not competent to take such a decision in view of the terms and conditions of auction referred to above. In the reply that has been hied on behalf of the respondents, it has been asserted that the Government has delegated the powers to the various officers and, in this connection reference has been made to the Manual and Orders Chapter 26, Para 26-9-1. Annx. 1. Para III. We find that the afore- mentioned provisions have no bearing on the matter in issue. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Superintending Engineer was not competent to take a decision for rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner and the said decision of the Superintending Engineer which was communicated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer by letter dated 20th April, 1988, cannot be uphold and must be set aside. 6. The question as to whether the bid of the petitioner should be accepted or not, must be considered by the State Government and it should take a decision on it within a period of two weeks from today. 7. The writ petition is therefore allowed the order of the Superintending Engineer communicated by the Executive Engineer by his letter dated 29th April, 1988 is set aside and the State Government is directed to take a decision with regard to acceptance of the bid of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******