JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition arises from auction held for settling contract for collection of hides and bones of dead animals, conducted by the Nagar Palika, Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur. 2. The aforesaid auction was held on 24-3-90 at which the petitioner's bid of Rs. 75,000/- was the highest. The petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 25,000/- at the fall of hammer. Thereafter, on 28-3-90 notice was issued to the petitioner by the Nagar Palika requiring him to submit General Stamp of the value of Rs. 5,750/- on which the contract could be endorsed. It was pointed out in this notice that if the amount was not deposited, the petitioner will not be entitled to collect hides and bones with effect from 1-4-1990. It appears that this notice was sent by post. According to the petitioner this notice was received by him on 2-4-l90 On 10-4-1990 notice was issued to the petitioner stating therein that he had failed to deposit the General Stamp of Rs. 5,750/- and, therefore, the contract stood nullified and the amount of Rs. 25,000/- stood forfeited. Copy of this notice has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-5. It is this notice which is now challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The impugned notice has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it did not fix any time for deposit of the Stamp Paper and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed default in the compliance of the requirements of the notice. It is further stated that although it was mentioned in the notice that the petitioner will not be allowed to collect hides and bones with effect from 1-4-1 ^90, the notice was not served upon him before that date. The notice is challenged also on the ground that the forfeiture of money and cancellation of contract results in civil consequences and these consequences, which are adverse to the petitioner, have been brought about with out giving him opportunity of hearing. 4. The petition has been opposed by opposite party no. 1 on whose behalf counter-affidavit of Raghunath Sahai, Executive officer, has been filed. Notice of the petition was accepted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 by Sri Rakesh Kumar, but he has neither filed power nor has he filed any counter affidavit. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 on whose behalf counter-affidavit of Raghunath Sahai, Executive officer, has been filed. Notice of the petition was accepted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 by Sri Rakesh Kumar, but he has neither filed power nor has he filed any counter affidavit. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 it has been stated that the notice dated 28-3-90, Annexure No. CA-1, was attempted to be served upon the petitioner by the agency of opposite party no. 1, but the same could not be served upon the petitioner, and it was only thereafter that it was sent by registered post. Along with the counter-affidavit, Annexure No. CA-l-A has been filed which is said to contain the terms and conditions of the auction held on 24-3-90. Reliance is placed for petitioner's default on Clauses 5 and 7 of this auction notice. It is submitted on behalf of opposite party no. 1 that within one week of the auction the petitioner was required to file General Stamp, which he failed to do, Clause 7 is relied upon for submitting that if requirements of Clause 5 are not complied with, the consequence, as indicated in this Clause, is that the sum of i/3rd amount, deposited on the fall of manner, stands forfeited and the contract stands nullified 6. Copy of counter-affidavit was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner on 11-9-90 but it was filed on Court today. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the statement that he will not file any rejoinder-affidavit. After this statement had been made, we started the hearing of the case. 7. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that terms of auction which have been filed as Annexure CA-l-A were not brought to the notice of the petitioner. There is no such statement on oath by the petitioner and, therefore, we are unable to accept the same. Clause 5 of the Terms and Conditions of auction reads as follows : - "5. Jiske paksh me bole chootegee usko nilami ke tith se ek saptah ke andar afne vaya se nirdharit stamp par anubandh dakhil karna awashayak hoga." From this clause it is apparent that the petitioner was required to file the General Stamp within one week of the auction. Jiske paksh me bole chootegee usko nilami ke tith se ek saptah ke andar afne vaya se nirdharit stamp par anubandh dakhil karna awashayak hoga." From this clause it is apparent that the petitioner was required to file the General Stamp within one week of the auction. This period expired on 31-3-90 and admittedly the petitioner did not submit the stamps either on 30-3-90 or even thereafter. 8. The consequences of default in compliance of the requirements of Clause 5 are incorporated in Clau.e 7 which read as follows "Neelam prapta karne wala vaktya yadi nirdharit samaya me theka sambandi sari karwahiyan, agreement ityadi pura nahin karta hai to uska theka nirast kar diya jayega aur theka uchane me laga kharcha sambandhit thekedaar se vasool kiya jayega aur uske dwara jama kee gayee ? dhanrashi jabt kar le jayegee." In this Clause it is specifically mentioned that the ?rd amount already deposited will stand forfeited and the contract will stand nullified. 9. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has invited our attention to Annexure CA-l-B also to the counter-affidavit. This is auction notice dated 9-3-90. Last sentence of this notice reads thus : - "Es theke ke sambandh me adhik jaankari evam shara hetu palika karyalaya me dekhee ja sakee hai." In the quotation above, the word used is "shara". The document is a photo copy. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has produced before us the original from which the photo copy has been prepared. It contains the word "sharayat". It is obvious that auction notice itself wanted the bidder to ascertain the terms of the auction from the office of opposite party No. I. If the petitioner*ignored to ascertain the terms of auction from opposite party No. 1, it is his" own fault for which opposite party No. 1 cannot be blamed. 10. In view of above clauses, the impugned notice cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 11. The petitioner's submission that show-cause notice was required to be given is mis-conceived as the terms of auction themselves constituted notice to the petitioner. 12. In view of our above findings, At is not necessary to go into the question of service of notice issued on 28-3-90. That notice was issued by opposite party No. 1, it appears, by way of abundant caution. 12. In view of our above findings, At is not necessary to go into the question of service of notice issued on 28-3-90. That notice was issued by opposite party No. 1, it appears, by way of abundant caution. Even if this notice had not been issued, the consequences indicated here in above would have flowed. However, it does appear that opposite party No. 1 tried to serve the notice upon the petitioner before 31-3-90. The notice had been issued on. 28-3-90, and it was returned in the office of opposite party No. I the same day unserved. Opposite party No. 1 cannot, therefore, be accused of any mala fide action. 13. In view of the above, the petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed with costs to opposite party No. 1. 14. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.