JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra A.C. J—There is a taxi stand and a bus station where vehicles are parked, within the limits of Notified Area Committee, Jwalamukhi. For the past many years, the Notified Area Committee has been farming out the right to collect fees for the use of the two parking lots. From the assertions made in the affidavits, which have been exchanged amongst the parties in the present petition, instituted by one of the persons who thought that in case he had knowledge about the proposed settlement he would have made a bid for it, it seems clear that during the financial years 19&9-90 and 1990-91, the Notified Area Committee settled the matter by public auction. There is some dispute about the modalities adopted in the financial year 1991-92. 2. The case of the petitioner is that for the financial year 1992-93, that is, the period between April I, 1992 and March 31, 1993, both the parking lots; were settled by private negotiations by the 3rd respondent, namely, the Tehsildar, Dehra, who is a Receiver appointed by this Court to manage the properties of Panchayat Samiti Debra No due notice of the proposed settlement was given so that the petitioner could not put forward his own bid It has also been said that the right has been farmed out in respect of the parking lots near the bus station, Jwalamukhi, at a figure lower than what was fixed to be the minimum amount of bid for it. The assertion is that though the minimum amount was put at Rs 50,000, the parking lot was handed over for this year to the 5th respondent (Sanjay Sharma) for a sum of Rs 41,000 only. 3. Even though notices were directed to issue to all the respondents by this Court long time back, the 5th respondent, Shri Sanjay Sharma, has not appeared in these proceedings, nor has he filed any return. The fact that the minimum amount, which was disclosed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the parking lot near the bus station for the year in question, was a sum of Rs 50,000, has remained unchallenged. So also, the assertion that the place was settled by the respondents for a sum of Rs. 41,000 only. The fact that the minimum amount, which was disclosed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the parking lot near the bus station for the year in question, was a sum of Rs 50,000, has remained unchallenged. So also, the assertion that the place was settled by the respondents for a sum of Rs. 41,000 only. As far as the parking lot near the taxi stand is concerned, the minimum figure disclosed by the 3rd respondent for it was Rs 40,000 It has been said that the 4th respondent, Shri Shashi, made a bid for that amount The 4th respondent has appeared through Shri D. D. Sood, Advocate, and has also filed his return. 4. The stand taken in the return, filed on behalf of the 3rd and 4th respondents, is that due publicity of the proposed auction was given by the 3rd respondent. It has also been said that a very large number of persons had actually presented themselves and several of them made their own bids after depositing the minimum amount fixed for it. If is maintained by these respondents that the petitioner, with due diligence and reasonable care, could have come to know about it when the lots were to be put for ward for settlement for the current financial year. He has not done so. He cannot, therefore, complain now. 5. Looking at the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, we find that publicity is said to have been given to the proposed settlement, in respect of both the parking lots, by issuance of notice, copies whereof were forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner Kangra (at Dharamsala); the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Debra ; the Secretary, Notified Area Committee, Jwalamukhi ; the Adda Incharge, Bus Station, Dehra and the Pradhans of Gram Panchayats, Darang, Bohan, Amb, Pathiar, Gumbar and Kbohla, apart from being affixed on the notice board at public places for wide publicity. In his return the 4th respondent has also averred that a very large number of persons, some of whom have been named in para 2 of the return, were present at the spot in consequence of the publicity made, as aforesaid. 6. The respondents do not aver that there is any statutory rule or principle laid down by which publicity is to be made for settlement of the right to collect fees at the two parking lots. 6. The respondents do not aver that there is any statutory rule or principle laid down by which publicity is to be made for settlement of the right to collect fees at the two parking lots. The purpose of having either a rule or clear guidelines in this connection cannot be over emphasised. 7. The publicity about the proposed auction should be made in a manner which may rule out any possibility of an allegation, like the one made in the present case, that only a chosen few came to know about the proposed settlement. In the absence of any pre-existing rule or guidelines in the matter, it would appear quite reasonable to hold that publicity should be given, sufficiently in advance, of the proposed settlement by publication of the notice atleast in one vernacular newspaper having sufficient circulation in the area. Else, like in the present case, an action, howsoever bona fide, may attract criticism of the nature which has been leveled against the respondents in the present case. May be, as disclosed in the returns of respondents No. 3 and 4, the methodology adopted for the purpose attracted quite a few people to the spot who also participated in the proceedings. Yet, if publicity had been made by publication in a newspaper, many more may have been attracted to the site and, ought we know, many more may have offered higher amount, adding to the revenue of the local body. 8. We direct that in future, whenever settlement of the parking lots is made for an area, publication of the notice in a vernacular newspaper having circulation in the area, shall also be effected apart from any other method for publicising the date on which the settlement would be made by public auction. 9. In the present case, as noticed earlier, the parking lot at the taxi stand has been settled with the 4th respondent for a sum of Rs 40,000 which was a minimum amount set for the purpose by the 3rd respondent. We would not be inclined to disturb the 4th respondent in the current financial year. 9. In the present case, as noticed earlier, the parking lot at the taxi stand has been settled with the 4th respondent for a sum of Rs 40,000 which was a minimum amount set for the purpose by the 3rd respondent. We would not be inclined to disturb the 4th respondent in the current financial year. Of course, Shri D. D. Sood is right, that inasmuch as the 4th respondent has not been able to commence the working on account of the interim order passed by this Court on April 1, 1992, we direct that proportionate reduction shall be available to the 4th respondent from the total amount of Rs. 40,000 payable by him during the year 1992-93. The 4th respondent shall be permitted to function with effect from August 1, 1992. 10. The case of the 5th respondent, however, stands on a different footing. The amount for which the right to permit the use of the parking lot near the bus stand has been farmed out to him, is much below the minimum amount set therefor by the 3rd respondent. He has not appeared before this Court either. We find no equity in his favour. The 3rd respondent will take early steps in the light of what we have said above, for making settlement of that parking lot for the rest of the financial year. We have been told by Shri Ajay Sharma that the petitioner will be pre pared to offer a minimum bid of Rs 50,000 for the whole financial year for that parking lot. If the petitioner does so, he may also participate in the auction to be held for that parking lot now. 11. The 3rd respondent will commence and conclude the process for fresh settlement of the parking lot near the bus station within a month from today. 12. The petition shall stand disposed of, as aforesaid, but the parties are left to bear their own costs. Dasti copy. Order accordingly. -