JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The dispute in this petition pertains to settlement of contract through auction for realisation of Tahebazari in the district of Faizabad for the year 198889. 2. On 22nd March, 1988 a notice was published in the newspaper Jan Morcha that auction for settlement of contract shall take place on 30th March., 1988, at 11 a.m,. In pursuance of this notice auction took place. The petitioner participated in the auction and his bid of Rs. 50.500 was the highest and was accepted by the official conducting the auction. In accordance with the auction rules, the petitioner deposited 1/4th of the amount of his bid viz., Rs. 12,625. The petitioner claims that he approached the Nazool Officer on 11th April, 1988 with the intention of depositing the balance amount. It is also his claim that he took along with him the stamped paper on which the contract was to be engrossed. The petitioner asserts that neither the balance was accepted nor the contract was executed. The petitioner acquired knowledge that opposite party no. 5, Virendra Bahadur Singh, had approached the authorities and had offered a bid of Rs. 55,500. The petitioner asserts that opposite party no. 5 had not participated in the auction and he had no right to offer his bid in the manner done by him. The petitioner also acquired knowledge that fresh auction was going to take place on 18th April, 1988. On 18th April, 1988 itself the instant writ petition was filed. The plea raised in the petition was that the contract in favour of the petitioner had become final and, therefore, there was no occasion to hold fresh auction. A division Bench of this Court, by order dated 18th April, 1988, directed the petitioner to effect service upon opposite party no. |5 as notice on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 4 had already been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. The Bench fixed 28th April, 198k for orders. An interim order was also passed on the same day in the following terms: In the meantime learned Standing Counsel may seek instructions. It is also provided that till the next date of listing the auction fixed for today shall not take place and in case the auction has already taken place, it shall not be given effect to nor shall be confirmed. 3. It is also provided that till the next date of listing the auction fixed for today shall not take place and in case the auction has already taken place, it shall not be given effect to nor shall be confirmed. 3. The writ petition has been opposed by opposite parties 1 to 4 as well as by opposite party no. 5. In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4 it had not been disputed that auction was held in accordance with the notice dated 22nd March, 1988 and the petitioner was the highest bidder and he deposited l/4th of the amount of his bid. It has, however, been stated that the acceptance of bid was not final as it required approval of the Collector. It is stated that before the petitioner's bid could be approved, opposite party no. 5 approached the Collector and offered higher bid of Rs. 55.500. The Collector neither approved the petitioner's bid nor accepted the offer of opposite party no. 5. He directed reauction which was faxed on 18th April, 1988 at 4.30 p. m. This auction was held and opposite party no 5 offered his bid of Rs. 1,03,000 which was the highest and was accepted and approved by the Collector and possession was delivered to him. It is further stated that the petitioner also participated in the auction and submitted his tender containing the bid of Rs. 1,01,000. This bid being lower was not accepted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the auction held on 18th April, 1988 at which opposite party no. 5's bid was accepted, was invalid as it was held after the service of the interim order of this Court whereby holding of auction had been stayed. 5. That the auction was held after service of the Court's interim order is not in dispute. In fact it is admitted in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4. The plea of the opposite parties is that the petitioner abandoned his rights under the Court's interim order and participated in the auction and tendered his bid. It is pressed that on the principle of approbate and reprobate the petitioner cannot challenge the auction held on 18th April, 1988. In pressing the principle of approbate and reprobate, the learned counsel for opposite party no. It is pressed that on the principle of approbate and reprobate the petitioner cannot challenge the auction held on 18th April, 1988. In pressing the principle of approbate and reprobate, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 5, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, has placed reliance on 1956 Supreme Court Reports 451, Nagubai Ammal and others v. B. Shama Rao and others. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that neither the petitioner actually abandoned the right accrued to him under the Court's interim order nor he legally could. In support of his plea that the petitioner could not legally abandon the right, the petitioner's learned counsel Sri N.K. Pandey has placed reliance upon: 1. AIR 1968 Punjab & Haryana 217, S. Sher Singh v. Raghu Pati Kapur and another; and 2. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 791, Shri Amrit Nahata v. Union of India and others. 7. So far as factual aspect is concerned; opposite party no. 5 has stated in paragraph 8 of his counteraffidavit that the petitioner agreed to participate in the auction. The reply to this paragraph in the rejoinderaffidavit does not contain specific denial of this allegation. It, therefore, stands established that the petitioner willingly abandoned the right that accrued to him under the interim order of this Court. 8. The circumstances also point to abandonment of the right pf the petitioner. The petitioner had the interim order in his favour which he had already served upon the concerned officer. Thereafter he was under no obligation to participate in the auction and offer his bid. But he actually participated and offered his bid which is just the double of the bid offered by him at the earlier auction. It is not his case that he offered his bid with reservation of claim made in the writ petition. Obviously if his bid had been the highest and would have been accepted and approved he would have felt satisfied and would have got the petition dismissed or would have allowed it to be dismissed in default. It is only when he has again lost the chance of getting the contract that the petitioner has taken somersault and has started challenging the validity of the auction. In our opinion the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging the auction. 9. It is only when he has again lost the chance of getting the contract that the petitioner has taken somersault and has started challenging the validity of the auction. In our opinion the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging the auction. 9. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has filed an application in this Court under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against Sri Jagat Pal, Additional District Magistrate,(Nazul Officer),Faizabad and opposite party no. 5. The Hon'ble Contempt Judge by his order dated 6th May, 1988 issued notice to opposite party no. 5 only, holding that no case for contempt had been made out against the Nazul Officer. From this it is apparent that even the Hon'ble Contempt Judge was of the opinion that on account of abandonment of his right by the petitioner, the Nazul Officer could not be said to have acted against the spirit of the interim order. It cannot, therefore, be said that the auction was held by committing contempt of this Court. If no contempt was committed of this Court by holding the auction on 18th April, 1988, the auction also cannot be said to be invalid. 10. The decisions in Sher Singh and Amrit Nahata (Supra) are of no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In neither of these decisions it has been laid down that a right accrued under an interim order of the Court cannot be waived or abandoned. All that has been laid down in these cases is that once proceedings for contempt have been started, the matter is between the Court and the alleged contemner and the Court is not to drop the proceedings at the mere asking of the party who initiated the proceedings. These authorities may be relevant in the contempt case which has been launched by the petitioner when he applies for dropping the said proceedings, but they have no application to the present case. 11. Now the original dispute which brought the petitioner to this Court may also be seen. As noticed hereinabove the petitioner's plea was that the auction held on 30th March, 1988 was final and, therefore, there was no occasion to hold the fresh auction. The learned counsel for the State placed before us the relevant record including two conditions of suction. Condition no. As noticed hereinabove the petitioner's plea was that the auction held on 30th March, 1988 was final and, therefore, there was no occasion to hold the fresh auction. The learned counsel for the State placed before us the relevant record including two conditions of suction. Condition no. 2 is that the bid will be accepted by the Competent Officer. It has been explained that the Competent Officer was the Collector. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner's bid of Rs. 50,500 had been accepted by the Collector. The petitioner's assertion, therefore, that the contract in his favour became final has no legal basis. 12. Altogether, we are satisfied that the action of the State authorities has not been arbitrary. It was the duty of the State authorities to see that a fair consideration was received for the contract. The pattern of bidding at the subsequent auction shows that the petitioner's bid of Rs. 50,500 was grossly inadequate. Petitioner himself doubled this amount at the subsequent auction. By filing this misconceived petition, the petitioner tried to grab the contract for a grossly inadequate consideration. 13. In view of the above the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, there shall however, be no order as to costs.