JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged parties are agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally, 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 19-6-1990 an auction notice was issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Departments, Hamirpur for settlement of right to collect tolls of bridge Sanjay Setu' situate at 65 Kilometer on Kanpur- Hamirpur Kabrai Marg. The settlement was to be made for a period of one year and the auction was scheduled to be held on 31st July, 1990. Under the terms of the auction notice every bidder at the said auction had to submit certain documents and then only he was to be permitted to take part in the auction. One of the important documents was a solvency certificate for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. It was provided in the auction notice that in case the solvency certificate was not submitted in accordance with the terms or the auction notice then such person will not be permitted to bid at the auction. 3. The petitioner submitted a solvency certificate on 24-7-1990. On 31-7-1990 the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Hamirpur notified the list of persons permitted to participate in the auction as also a list of persons excluded from participating in the auction. Petitioner made an enquiry as to why he was not permitted to participate in the auction; The petitioner was informed that since the solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner was on the basis of movable and immovable property, the same was not in accordance with the condition No. 2 of the auction notice and consequently the solvency certificate was not a valid certificate and as such the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the auction. 4. On 31-7-1990 auction was held. Prithviraj Singh gave highest bid for a sum of Rs. 21,15,000/-. The second bidder was Munindra Nath Upadhyaya who gave bid for Rs. 21,13,000/-. These were only two bidders at the auction. Since the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the auction, petitioner filed the present petition challenging the auction proceeding held on 31-7-1990. On 31-7-1990 auction was held. Prithviraj Singh gave highest bid for a sum of Rs. 21,15,000/-. The second bidder was Munindra Nath Upadhyaya who gave bid for Rs. 21,13,000/-. These were only two bidders at the auction. Since the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the auction, petitioner filed the present petition challenging the auction proceeding held on 31-7-1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Hamirpur acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction. His contention is that the solvency certificate submitted by him was a valid certificate in accordance with the auction notice and consequently the proceedings of the auction held on 31-7-1990 are liable to be quashed. 5. Copy of the auction notice has been attached as Annexure 3' to this petition. Clause 2' which is relevant for the purposes of decision in this petition is quoted below ; "2-Prataik biddar ko uprokta karya hetu apni hasiyat pramaan patra dena hogi jisme Nagad Evam achal Sampatti ka viran diya jayega jo ki Sanjay Setu hetu 25,00000/- Pacheese Lakh se kam ka na hoga. Prastut kiye gaye haisiyat pramaan patra se adhik boli mannya nahi hogi. Yadi haisiyat pramaan patra se adhik boli thekedar bolta hai to use utni' haisiyat ka pramaan patra boli bolne ke 15 din ke andar prastut karna hoga anyatha uski dharoher dhanrashi jabta karne ka adhikar Sarkar ko hoga. Varsh ki isthiti me haisiyat pramaan patra firm ke naam prastut karna hoga. Firm ke alag alag Sajhidaron ka haisiyat pramaan patra maanya nahi hoga. Hasiyat pramaan patra se saath aaykar adhikari ka aadeya pramaan patra no dues certificate prastut karna anivarya hai. Yah haisiyat pramaan patra apne zile ke zilaadhikari se mool rup me prastut karna hoga jo ki karyalaya me zama rahengey. Boli sveekrit na hone ki dasha me vaidhata samapta hone par hi vapis kiye ja saktey hain." The above clause (2) of the notice clearly provides that every bidder shall have to submit a solvency certificate for a sum of rupees twenty five lacs inrespect of his cash and immovable property. Boli sveekrit na hone ki dasha me vaidhata samapta hone par hi vapis kiye ja saktey hain." The above clause (2) of the notice clearly provides that every bidder shall have to submit a solvency certificate for a sum of rupees twenty five lacs inrespect of his cash and immovable property. This certificate has to be issued by the District Magistrate of the district concerned It is clear from this notice that the mandatory requirement was that the solvency certificate was to be in respect of cash and immovable property and it has to be certified by the District Magistrate concerned. The petitioner has attached the solvency certificate which he had submitted before the Executive Engineer. This has been attached as Annexure 6' to the petition We have perused this certificate. This has been issued by the Tahsildar Jalaun on 24-7-1990' and counter signed by A D.M. (Project) Jalaun. Certificate is in respect of movable and immovable properties and not in respect of cash and immovable property. It has also not been signed by the District Magistrate concerned. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U. P. in paragraph 6 it has been catagorically stated that under clause (2) of the auction notice the solvency certificate had to be issued by the District Magistrate in original which has not been done. It has been further stated that the solvency certificate includes movable property which was not required in the auction notice as also under the Government Order dated 28 6-1982 which has been attached as Annexure CA-II to the counter affidavit which is the basis of clause (2) of the auction notice A"n xure-'CA-II' was issued by the State Government on 28th June. 1982. It was clearly provided in the said order that solvency certificate will only be accepted in regard to cash and immovable property and that it has to be signed by the District Magistrate concerned. It is, therefore clear that the solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with clause (2) of the auction notice. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department acted illegally in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the auction. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 6. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department acted illegally in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the auction. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 6. In view of the above, in our opinion, there is no merit in this petition and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.