ORDER In the writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure-4, an order of settlement of sand under the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 in favour of respondents 4 and 5. 2. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been violation of Rule 11A which envisages that the settlement should be made by public auction by the Collector, Patna to the high eat bidder. It is said that the matter was notified only in the District Gazette whereas it was required to be published in newspapers as well. Consequently the petitioner was deprived of his right to participate in the public auction. 3 In support of the submission the petitioner relied on paragraph 4 (Annexure 5) of the Government circular dated 11.10.l988 which reads as follows: ¼4½ ckywq ?kkVksa dh uhykeh ls lacaf/kr foKkiu] LFkkuh; ftyk xtV rFkk LFkkuh; :i ls izdkf’kr gksus okys v[kckjksa esa lcls egRoiw.kZ v[kckj esa 15 fnuksa dk le; nsrs gq, izdkf’kr djk;k tk;sA 4. The State has filed a counter-affidavit asserting that there has been a regular public auction and the matter was notified in the District Gazette. There is no assertion by any of the respondents that the same was also published in any important newspaper of the town. 5. Mr. Chandramduli Prasad, appearing on behalf of respondents took a preliminary objection that as against the order, Annexure-4, the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 45 of the Rules to move the Commissioner concerned, which has not been done. So this Court ought not to readily interfere with the matter. Learned counsel also submitted that the lease is going to be expired only after four months and, therefore, interference at this stage will not be in the interest of any concerned. 6. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that public duty should be performed publicly more so when it involves revenue of the Government. The State must publish the date of public auction in advance by giving reasonable time for all concerned to participate and by adopting all modes for wide publication including publication of the auction in important newspapers where the auction is to take place. 7. The submission of Mr. The State must publish the date of public auction in advance by giving reasonable time for all concerned to participate and by adopting all modes for wide publication including publication of the auction in important newspapers where the auction is to take place. 7. The submission of Mr. Chandramauli Prasad that the circular is not a part of the Rules and therefore not binding do not impress us; in absence of any rules to the contrary as to how the matter should be published. The State Government can always supplement the rules by issuing executive instructions and that is all that has been done by issuance of Annexure-5. Questions would have been different, had the State tried to supplant the rules by executive instructions. 8. Be that as it may, we find that the instant auction took place in February, 1991 whereas the petitioner has moved this Court four months thereafter. The lease is also expiring on 31st December, 1991. The reserve Jama was six thousand whereas the settlement by public auction has been at Rs. 26,800/-. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner is prepared to offer Rs. 26,800/- but the Court is not a bidding house. The petitioner had also an internal remedy which was not exhausted. 9. For the above reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the settlement at this stage. The authorities must abide by the circular, annexure 5 which lays down the mode and manner of notification of public auction in time. 10. This application is accordingly, dismissed with the above observations.