JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner is the highest bidder at the auction held on 29-3-1989 regarding tahbazari theka for the year 1989-90 in the Notified area, Obra, district Sonbhadra. The petitioner has attached annexures 1' and 2' to the petition to demonstrate that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money and a sum of Rs. 28,250/- was paid as the first instalment. Annexure 3 to the petition indicates that the papers were sent to the Collector, district Sonbhadra regarding the highest bid at the auction in favour of the petitioner. Annexure 6' indicates that the Prabhari Adhikari had accepted the highest bid in favour of the petitioner. Annexure 5' indicates that on the application of one Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, the proceedings for auction held on 29-3-1989 in favour of the petitioner should be set aside and if the aforesaid Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi deposites 1/4th of the higher offer made by him within three days, his offer should be treated as the first bid and fresh auction should be done. Annexure 7' indicates that further proceedings regarding fresh auction is to be held. Annexure 8' dated 30-4-1989 indicates that re-auction regarding tahbazari theka for the year 1989-90 is to take place. 2. In the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner being aggrieved, has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and has prayed for quashing the order dated 14-4-1989, 19-4-1989 and 14-5-1989 contained in annexures 5', 7' and 10' as is evident from relief (i) claimed in the writ petition. The second prayer made in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the peaceful working of the petitioner as thekedar for collecting tahbazari within the Notified area Obra, district Sonbhadra and thereafter the general relief has been claimed. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Notified Area, Obra, district Sonebhadra and one Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi at whose instance the highest bid of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Collector, opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Notified Area, Obra, district Sonebhadra and one Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi at whose instance the highest bid of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Collector, opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the order dated 14-4-1989, contained in annexure 5' has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the aforesaid order is bad in law and adversely affects the claim of the petitioner and deserve to be quashed. It has also been contended that the order dated 19-4-1989 contained in annexure 7' and the order dated 14-5- 1989 contained in annexure 10' (not on the record) should also be quashed as they are consequential orders in pursuance of the order contained in annexure 5'. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have emphasised that the petitioner has no right to maintain the present writ petition. According to them, the auction held on 29-3-1989 in favour of the petitioner was not a fair transaction as proper publication had not taken place and the persons who were present at earlier occasion were not informed and given due notice and that the bid of the petitioner was inadequate. 4. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and we have gone through the material attached with he writ petition, supplementary affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. In our opinion the order dated 14-4-1989, contained in annexure 5' is patently erroneous and illegal as it has been rendered without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have emphasised that the highest bid offered by the petitioner required acceptance by the District Magistrate. Therefore, even if no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14-4-1989 contained in annexure 5' does not suffer from any error of law and it is immune from being quashed. No specific bye-law or rules has been placed before us in support of the contention that the highest bid at the auction required acceptance by the District Magistrate. No specific bye-law or rules has been placed before us in support of the contention that the highest bid at the auction required acceptance by the District Magistrate. It would not be out of place to mention here that our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 7 and 15 of annexure 3' and it has been emphasised that the bid required acceptance but a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs does not indicate that the acceptance by the Collector was necessary in the facts and circumstances or this case. Rather, annexure 6' of the writ petition indicates that the offer of the petitioner had been accepted by the Prabhari Adhikari. For the sake of argument even if it is accepted that the highest bid of the petitioner required acceptance by the Collector, had the Collector rejected the offer suo motu, it could be said that no opportunity to the petitioner was necessary. But, when the Collector rejected the bid of the petitioner on the application of Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, the minimum requirement from him was to give an opportunity to the petitioner to justify that the auction knocked down in favour of the petitioner was fair and due notice had been given to the persons concerned. Since the Addl. Collector in passing the impugned order dated 14-4-1989 has not observed the rule of fair play and has not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, we think that the order suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. 5. In Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made the following observations vide paragraph 13 : ".....A unilateral offer, secretly made, not correlated to any reserved price made by the fourth respondent after making false statement in the letter was accepted without giving any opportunity to the appellant either to raise the bid or to point out the falsity of the allegations made by the fourth respondent in the letter as also the inadequacy of his bid. The appellant suffered an unfair treatment by the State in discharging its administrative functions thereby violating the fundamental principle of fairplay in action......" In the present case, we find that the Addl. The appellant suffered an unfair treatment by the State in discharging its administrative functions thereby violating the fundamental principle of fairplay in action......" In the present case, we find that the Addl. Collector accepted the version of Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to show that the allegations made by aforesaid Tripathi were not correct and that the auction was held after due notice to the persons concerned and that his bid was not inadequate in the circumstances of the case. 6. In Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar v. Udai Veer Singh, 1989 RD 51 a Division Bench of this court has observed in paragraph 1 of column 1 at page 59 as below : "... .The highest bidder was made to deposit substantial moneys in keeping with the pattern and modality of the auction. Within a reasonable time his highest bid was not rejected, and has not been rejected. Another auction was announced but the highest bidder was not given an opportunity to have his say before such an announcement, this virtually amounted to rejecting the highest bid without indicating it to the bidder and in the absence of an opportunity to him. The attempt to reauction was surreptitious and entertained unilaterally and secretly and as an after thought." Though the facts of the case are a little different but the learned Judges have emphasised that the announcement of another auction without an opportunity to the highest bidder at the earlier occasion, was surreptitious and an afterthought. IN the present case we think that the authority before passing the order dated 14-4-1989, contained in annexure 5' should have given an opportunity to the petitioner who was the highest bidder and in not doing so, the authority has failed to observe the rule of fair play and its order deserves to be quashed. Our attention has been drawn to the ruling reported in B. Sambaiah v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Devasthanam, AIR 1989 AP 65 . The facts involved in that case are somewhat similar to the facts under our consideration. We agree with the following observation made by the learned Single Judge of that court in paragraph 5 : "......This does not justify that even a public auction held in conformity with rules could be considered to be inadequate just because after conclusion of the auction somebody intervenes to pay a farthing more. We agree with the following observation made by the learned Single Judge of that court in paragraph 5 : "......This does not justify that even a public auction held in conformity with rules could be considered to be inadequate just because after conclusion of the auction somebody intervenes to pay a farthing more. A person occupying a higher office of the Commissioner of Endowments should not be guided by an advantage in monetary consideration secured by the intervention of a person who did not Care to participate in the public auction." "......If this consideration is the guiding principle then it is not possible to draw a line at any particular point. For instance, a re-auctian is held and the highest bid is accepted and when the approval of the Commissioner is sought, another person makes a representation to the Commissioner offering a higher lease amount. Would the Commissioner reconduct the whole auction ? If so, how may auctions he would be willing to conduct ? If one has to set his foot down, as a matter of principle, against considerations like this, it must stop at the point where the first public auction was held in an atmosphere of total trust and without evoking any suspicion." "......That there is not the slightest justification on the part of the Commissioner to withhold approval in the present case and it must be stated that the Commissioner acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. The action of the Commissioner must be regarded as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India." 7. In the present case, we think that the Addl. Collector has acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in accepting the contention of Jai Prakash Tripathi without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14-4-1989, contained in Annexure 5' deserves to be quashed. When the aforesaid order is quashed, the order contained in annexure 7' and any theka in favour of any person would be rendered ineffective. 8. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-4-1989, contained in Annexure 5' attached with the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.