JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, P.W.D. Dhatapur district Bijnor issued a notice on 25-5-1992 for settlement of the right to collect toll for a period of three years over bridge Pili-Setu, situate on Jaspur-Dhampur road, by means of public auction to be held on 18-7-1992. Auction was held as per schedule and it was closed in favour of the petitioner, whose bid was the highest at the rate of Rs. 1,08,000/- per year. The Commissioner of the Division, who is entitled to accept or reject the bid, curtailed the period of the settlement/contract for collection of the toll from three years to less than one year, inasmuch as the petitioner was given right to collect the toll from 1-11-1992 to 31-3-1993. The petitioner represented against the curtailment of the period and no action having been taken by the Respondents on his representation, he filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus, so as to enable him to collect toll over the bridge in question for full period of three years in pursuance of the auction notice. 2. Respondents have filed counter affidavit, and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Grievance of the petitioner, as raised through his learned Counsel, is that as the notice was issued for settlement of rights to collect toll for a period of three years by public auction and as the petitioner has offered bid taking into consideration that he will be able to collect toll for full period of three years, it was not open to the Commissioner to curtail the period. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, defended the action of the Respondents on two grounds, viz., (i) the Government Order dated 16-6-1992, whereby the Government laid down policy for giving contract for collection of toll for one year only and the period in no case should go beyond March 31st following the date of auction and (ii) the letter of consent dated 2-9-1992 given by the petitioner for taking contract for collection of toll for the period less than three years. 4. 4. It is admitted to both the parties that settlement/contract for collection of the toll over bridges is governed by the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 as amended by the State of U.P. and the Uttar Pradesh Tolls Regulation, Levy and Collection Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Under the above provisions the aforesaid notice for settlement of the right to collect the toll by public auction was issued. From the perusal of the auction notice it is apparent that the advertisement was for holding auction for three years. This notice was neither superseded nor was amended by any corrigendum for reducing the period of settlement from three years to one year. The auction was .held in pursuance of the above notice in which the petitioner's bid, which was for three years, was the highest. The Government Order dated 16-6-1992 was issued after the advertisement of auction notice on 25-5-1992 but before holding of the actual auction, which was held on 18-7-1992. But rights of the parties are governed by the auction notice. The above Government Order laying down the policy for giving contract for collection of toll for a period of one year only contains directions issued by the Government to its officials. It could not supersede the auction notice. It was open to the Respondents to issue fresh notice superseding the earlier notice dated 25-5-1992 or to issue corrigendum for amending the earlier notice so as to curtail the period in pursuance of the Government Order dated 16-6-1992. But it was not done, with the result that the rights of the parties continued to- he governed by the auction notice, which provided the period of three years for collection of the toll. Under the circumstances the Commissioner could not have curtailed the period from three years to five months only. A Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Chand v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 9704 of 1987, decided on 20-8-1987) while dealing with the similar controversy, relevant extract from which has been reproduced below, has rejected the claim of the Slate to reduce the period of contract/settlement against the term of the auction notice. One may not dispute the power of the Commissioner to fix the period of lease for one year if the same would have been initially advertised. One may not dispute the power of the Commissioner to fix the period of lease for one year if the same would have been initially advertised. But once the public auction was held, forgiving of lease for three years, it is difficult to accept that the Commissioner could reduce or shorten the period from three years to one year. Several considerations weight in the mind of the persons participating in the auction. They may be difficult to be described. If the public notice for auction would have also provided that the Commissioner had the powers to curtail the period, the approval of the lease for one year could not be objected to. 5. The letter of the petitioner dated 2-9-1992 does not indicate that he has agreed for the reduction of the period of contract from three years to five months, although it is mentioned there in that the order be passed at the earliest even for lesser period so as to enable him to carry on the work. The above letter does not confer any right on the Commissioner to reduce the period from three years to five months. Identical ; controversy was also raised and decided in the case of Mahesh Chand (supra), relevant contract from which is reproduced below: Reliance was placed by the Respondent's counsel on the writing given by the petitioner by which he agreed to take the lease for one year. If the Commissioner did not have the power to curtail the period, the curtailment cannot have validity by obtaining the letter. He was not in a position to opt for something different than what he was asked to do. 6 In this connection learned Standing Counsel has placed before us another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 3668 of 1993, decided on 15-5-1993), in support of his contention. This decision, however, does not help him inasmuch as the earlier auction notice, which provided for, period of agreement for three years, was amended before holding of auction by means of corrigendum published in news paper on 30-7-1992, whereby it was declared that the auction will be held for one year only and such period will not go beyond 31st March following the date of auction. As the rights of the parties are governed by auction notice, which was amended before holding of auction providing for contract for a period of one year, the Commissioner was fully justified to grant the contract for collection of tolls for the period of one year only. No exception can be taken to such an order. In the instant case auction notice was neither superseded nor was amended providing, for grant of contract for lesser period. There was also no provision in the original notice dated 25-5-1992 giving discretion to the Commissioner to give contract for the period less than three years. Under these circumstances, the action of the Respondents cannot be sustained. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to collect the toll for a period of three years in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the auction notice dated 25-5-1992 and execute the contract with him accordingly.