JUDGMENT : S.K. DHAON, J. 1. The principal prayer is that the auction held on 20th November, 1991, for settling the right to collect toll on Kalpi Bridge which is on the river Yamuna may be quashed. 2. Standing counsel represents the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Sarvasri S.C. Budhwar and Arun Tandon have put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 4 (Sri Om Prakash). Sri Devendra Singh Niranjan (Incharge Executive Engineer, Construction Division, National highway, P.W.D. Kanpur) has been cited as Respondent No. 5 in his personal capacity, although he has been cited as Respondent No. 3 in his official capacity. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Om Prakash, the Respondent No. 4. We do not consider it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in view of the order we are about to pass. It is not necessary to serve the Respondent No. 5 as we are not proposing to pass any order adverse to him. 3. With the consent of Sarvasri S.C. Budhwar, Arun Tandon and the learned Standing Counsel, we are proposing to dispose of this petition finally. 4. The material facts are these. 15th November, 1991 has been fixed for holding an auction to collect toll on the aforesaid bridge. On 14th November 1991, the Petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court with the allegations, that the notice for holding the auction on 15th November, 1991 had been published in the local newspaper on 28th October, 1991. The notice required the intending bidders to comply with certain formalities, namely, the submission of a character certificate and insolvency certificate, etc. Diwali holidays intervened between 20th October, 1991 and 15th November 1991 and, therefore, on account of paucity of time the Petitioner could not obtain the necessary certificates. This Court finally disposed of the said Writ petition with the direction that the auction should be put off for a period of one month. On 14th November, 1991, the Executive Engineer concerned on his own made an announcement that the auction had been adjourned from 15th November, 1991 to 20th November, 1991. On 18th November, 1991, the Petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner. Jhansi Division along with a certified copy of the order passed by this Court on 14th November, 1991. On 14th November, 1991, the Executive Engineer concerned on his own made an announcement that the auction had been adjourned from 15th November, 1991 to 20th November, 1991. On 18th November, 1991, the Petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner. Jhansi Division along with a certified copy of the order passed by this Court on 14th November, 1991. The Commissioner passed an order that the auction should not be held on 20th November, 1991. In spite of the order of the Commissioner, the Executive Engineer conducted the auction on 20th November, 1991. At that auction Sri Om Prakash was the highest bidder. 5. Learned Counsel for Sri Om Prakash have tried to convince us that the Executive Engineer had no option but to hold the auction on 20th November, 1991, as he felt bound by the certain orders passed by the Supreme Court before examining the orders of the Supreme Court, we may, in brief, state the facts which necessitated the intervention of the Supreme Court. They are these. The authorities had extended the right conferred upon M/s. Raj Shila to collect toll for a period of one year and, therefore, on the basis of said order of extension it could collect toll till 30th June, 1992. One Sri Khemraj felt aggrieved against the said order and he, therefore, preferred a writ petition in this Court. This Court on 11th July, 1991, stayed the operation of the order of the relevant authority extending the period of the earlier contract. Feeling aggrieved M/s Raj Shila preferred a SLP to the Supreme Court On 19th August, 1991; the Supreme Court passed an order to the following effect: ...We are making it clear that we are not staying the public auction which was proposed to be held by the State. In the mean time the status-quo of today with respect to collection of toll shall continue.... On 7th November, 1991, the Supreme Court passed another order in the following words: The Learned Counsel for the State of U.P. states that 15th November, 1991 is the date fixed for the public auction. We expected the authorities concerned to hold this auction earlier. However, we hope that the date will not be further postponed. The S.L.P. is adjourned to 22-11-1991. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the Learned Counsel for the U.P. for being sent to the authorities without delay. We expected the authorities concerned to hold this auction earlier. However, we hope that the date will not be further postponed. The S.L.P. is adjourned to 22-11-1991. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the Learned Counsel for the U.P. for being sent to the authorities without delay. On 22nd November, 1991, the Supreme Court passed yet another order which runs: It is stated by the Learned Counsel for the parties that the public auction has been held in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court...Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. SLP is dismissed. As a result the interim orders passed earlier by this Court stand vacated. 6. There is no allegation in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Om Prakash that the Petitioner had any knowledge of the order passed by this Court on 11th July, 1991 in the writ petition of Sri Khemraj staying the operation of the order of the relevant authority extending the earlier contract till 30th June, 1992. There is also no averment that the Petitioner had any knowledge of the aforementioned orders passed by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner, therefore, was justified in making an allegation in the writ petition preferred by him on 14th November, 1991, in this Court that the contract had been extended till 30th June, 1992, and, therefore, no injury will be caused to any one if the auction scheduled to be held on 15th November, 1991 was not held on that date. 7. The question is : Whether there was any justification on the part of the authority concerned to hold the auction on 20th November, 1991, in spite of the order passed by this Court on 14th November, 1991 We are not impressed by the argument advanced by Sri S.C. Budhwar that the Executive Engineer was bound to hold the auction in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. It will be noted that the Supreme Court had emphasised that the auction should be held on 15th November, 1991. Yet, for reasons not known, the auction was adjourned from 15th November, 1991 to 20th November, 1991. It will be noted that the Supreme Court had emphasised that the auction should be held on 15th November, 1991. Yet, for reasons not known, the auction was adjourned from 15th November, 1991 to 20th November, 1991. We have gone through the orders of the Supreme Court more than once and we are satisfied that the Court neither expressly nor impliedly observed that the authorities, while holding the auction, should not act fairly and give chance to all prospective bidders to participate in the auction. The Supreme Court also did not make any observation that the authorities below were free to flout the orders of this Court. This Court by its order dated 14th November, 1991, had merely ensured that the Petitioner should get a reasonable opportunity to participate in the auction. We have no hesitation in taking the view that the order passed by this Court on 14th November, 1991, was deliberately observed in its breach. This circumstance, in our opinion, is sufficient to vitiate the auction held on-20th November, 1991. 8. We are informed that the auction held on 20th November 1991, has not been given effect to so far in so far as a duly executed contract between the Department and Sri Om Prakash has not come into existence. We are also informed at the Bar that after the first order of the Supreme Court the Department itself commenced collecting toll and it is doing so even now. This arrangement shall continue till a fresh action is held. 9. We are not taking any action against Sri Devendra Singh Niranjan, the Respondent No. 5, as we feel that he may ultimately get the benefit of doubt if contempt proceedings are initiated against him. However, we are warning Sri Devendra Singh Niranjan that he should, in future, be careful in complying with the orders passed by this Court or any other competent Court. 10. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The auction held on 20th November, 1991 is quashed. We direct the authority concerned to hold the action on or about 30th December, 1991. Parties shall produce a certified copy of this order before the Commissioner Jhansi Division on or before 20th December, 1991. On receipt of the certified copy, the Commissioner shall take immediate steps to notify the auction. We reiterate that the auction shall be held on or about 30th December, 1991. 11. Parties shall produce a certified copy of this order before the Commissioner Jhansi Division on or before 20th December, 1991. On receipt of the certified copy, the Commissioner shall take immediate steps to notify the auction. We reiterate that the auction shall be held on or about 30th December, 1991. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on payment of usual charges on or before 11th December, 1991.