H. L. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is application by a Forest Contractor for rescinding the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division (O. P. 2) on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the solitary question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the principle of natural justice is to be expanded in all cases as a matter of routine and in the absence of following that principle, the impugned order (Annexure-5) can be held to be vitiated in law. ( 2 ) IN pursuance of the second supplementary auction sale notice for the years 1980-81, the working coupe S. W. C. XIX Lot No. (ii) Divisional Lot No. 189 of 1980-81 in Padampur Range in Gandhamardan Block was put to auction by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar on 26-2-1981. The petitioner offered Rs. 3,69,000/- and was declared to be the highest bidder. He deposited a sum of Rs. 36,900/-, being 10% of the bid money, on the same day according to the terms of the sale notice (Annexure-1/a ). Part III of the said notice contains the general conditions of sale and inter alia contains the following conditions :- "1. The right to take contract for exploiting forest produce in the lots advertised for sale in Part I of the sale notice will be granted to the bidder whose bid is conditionally accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, subject to the approval of the competent authority and the latter authority as approves it. No sale shall be binding on the Government until such approval has been obtained and communicated to the bidder and the formal agreement is execute on behalf of the Government. No bidder shall be eligible to rescind the contract between the date of bidding and the date of approval of the competent authority. xx xx xx 2 (a ). Successful bidders shall produce a statement of property, owned by them, duly attested by the concerned Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahasildar on conclusion of the sale in their favour. In case they are unable to produce such a statement for unavoidable reasons, they should produce a statement of property owned by them with their approximate valuation on solemn affirmation before a Magistrate to be followed by a property statement duly attested by a Revenue Officer within a month of the date of auction. In case they are unable to produce such a statement for unavoidable reasons, they should produce a statement of property owned by them with their approximate valuation on solemn affirmation before a Magistrate to be followed by a property statement duly attested by a Revenue Officer within a month of the date of auction. In case any successful bidder fails to produce either statement or affidavit as stated above, the sale will be quashed in addition to such other action as may be decided by the competent authority. xx xx xx xx xxxx 10 (a ). No sale of any lot will be considered valid or complete unless the above conditions have been complied with, and in the event of failure to comply with, the Divisional Forest Officer will be at liberty to quash the sale, forfeit the earnest money deposit under condition 4 or the deposit made under condition 10 (a) or the security deposit under condition 10 (b) or (c) as the case may be, resell the lot and to recover from the successful bidder, shortfall in price, if any, on such resale, as arrears of land revenue. In case the price received in such resale is more than the accepted bid, the original bidder should not be entitled to the excess. xx xx xx (Underlinings are mine) ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the petitioner did not furnish the property statement within the stipulated time of one month under the aforesaid Term 2 (a) of the notice. Nonetheless, he was called upon by the Divisional Forest Officer by his letter dt. 14-5-1981 (Annexure-3) at the address disclosed by him, to produce the same by 20-5-1981 positively so that ratification order might be issued in his favour. But the petitioner did not take any action on this. His case in the writ application is that he fell ill and was bedridden from 25-3-1981 to 10-6-1981 in his home town in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, he could not receive the above communication and could not carry out the direction. In support of his claim, he has filed a medical certificate. According to the petitioner, he got the latter only when he returned to Khariar after his recovery. In my opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the plea of illness is idle and irrelevant. Therefore, he could not receive the above communication and could not carry out the direction. In support of his claim, he has filed a medical certificate. According to the petitioner, he got the latter only when he returned to Khariar after his recovery. In my opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the plea of illness is idle and irrelevant. ( 4 ) ON the petitioner's failure, the Divisional Forest Officer issued the impugned order (Annexure-5) informing the petitioner that on account of his failure to submit the property statement, the auction in question was quashed at his risk as per Term 2 (a) of the general conditions of sale, and that the lot would be put to resell at his risk and the shortfall in the price, if any, after the resale would be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. This letter was also addressed to the petitioner at his Orissa address at which Annexure-3 had been issued. ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that on the failure of the petitioner, the sale in his favour remained incomplete at the first stage and non-operative subsequently, so much so that the order of ratification dt. 29-04-1981 was communicated to him. It has been rightly stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner, according to his case, fell ill almost after 30 days from the date of auction. Therefore, he could have furnished the property statement within the time available to him. The lot in question was put to resale on 29-09-1981. A copy of the resale notice was served on the petitioner in advance and, according to the averment made in para 19 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner participated in the auction and offered his bid on that day also. ( 6 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that cancellation of the sale by the impugned order (Annexure-5) is invalid on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. In other words, he contended that had an opportunity been given to the petitioner to explain the circumstances for not carrying out the conditions in the sale notice, the authorities, on being satisfied, might have extended the time to furnish the property statement. In other words, he contended that had an opportunity been given to the petitioner to explain the circumstances for not carrying out the conditions in the sale notice, the authorities, on being satisfied, might have extended the time to furnish the property statement. ( 7 ) IN my considered opinion, counsel for the petitioner is not correct in his stand to impugn Annexure-5 on the ground of infraction of the principles of natural justice. Annexure-5 is just a followup action in pursuance of the terms in the sale notice, which was issued months after the expiry of the stipulated period by which time the petitioner should have furnished the property statement, but he maintained complete silence. The petitioner had participated in the auction with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the sale. Any breach of the conditions on the part of the petitioner automatically entitled the authorities to enforce the default clause. The cancellation of the previous auction sale, on any account, was not beyond the knowledge of the petitioner for which he might urge that he has been taken unawares and thus has suffered due to the infraction of the elementary principles of natural justice. ( 8 ) APPLICATION of the principles of natural justice can be excluded and it is not imperative in each case. This principle has been well accepted by the Supreme Court in various cases and it would be worthwhile to notice one of them. In Chairman, Board of Mining v. Ramjee, 1977 (2) SCR 904 it has been observed that unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. If the totality of the circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity, the Court should decline to be punctillous or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures. The aim of the rule of audi alteram partem is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court, therefore, has to examine with reference to the circumstances of each case as to whether observance of the principle of real justice was necessary for a just decision. ( 9 ) I have already shown that the impugned order (Annexure-5) was passed according to the terms and conditions in the sale notice, of which the petitioner was fully aware. ( 9 ) I have already shown that the impugned order (Annexure-5) was passed according to the terms and conditions in the sale notice, of which the petitioner was fully aware. Therefore, the forfeiture of the earnest money has not visited him by any surprise to which he might offer any explanation. The breach of the stipulation automatically made the petitioner liable to suffer the forfeiture. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure-5) suffers from the vice of infraction of the principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) THERE is yet another angle for examining the order. That is, the participation of the petitioner in the second auction. It was rightly contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner must be estopped from challenging the order on applying the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the cancellation of the auction held earlier in his favour and enforce his so-called right under the auction, then he should not have participated in the second auction which was a followup action as a result of passing of the order of cancellation (Annexure-5 ). Obviously, by his conduct, the petitioner accepted the right of the Divisional Forest Officer to hold the re-auction and it might well be that had the auction been accepted in his favour, he might not have come to this Court. The entire exercise seems to be for refund of 10% of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner on 26-02-1981, when he was declared to be the highest bidder, which has been forfeited on account of the shortfall of the bid amount fetched on the resale in accordance with the terms. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, the application has got no substance and must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/- only. Petition dismissed.