JUDGMENT The State has not filed the return and the reply despite seeking opportunities on three occasions, i.e. 2.2.1994, 23.2.1994 and 28.3.1994. The respondent is the authority locally based and despite the service, and writings by the office of the Additional Advocate General, to the respondent, the respondent has not cared to file the reply or the return. The respondent had auctioned the quarry lease on 9.3.92 and the petitioner being the highest bidder had deposited an amount of Rs. 27,300/- on 9.3.92 itself, on the assurance given by the respondent to the petitioner that there was absolutely no dispute about the quarry lease which was to be auctioned. But later on, it was found that there was already an order of injunction against the respondent passed by the Court of Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 8A/91 after hearing the counsel for the respondent bipartite, directing the respondent to maintain the status quo with regard to the quarry lease. The order was passed on 28.2.92 and the next date was fixed for the filing of the reply by respondent as 18.3.92 but in the meantime, without caring for the order, the respondent put the lease to auction on 9.3.92, when in view of the order of the Civil Court, it was not open to the respondent to auction the quarry lease. The respondent's counsel, Shri Gupta, contended that the petitioner had filed a representation on 11.5.92 (Annex P/5) against the forfeiture of advance bid amount and it was received by the respondent in his office on that vary day but the impugned order (Annexure p/6) was passed on 15.5.92 and thereby the representation appears to have been rejected. It is further contended by the respondent's counsel that as against the order, an appeal is provided but that itself would not debar this Court from entertaining the petition if the illegality is apparent on record and if the right of the petitioner has been infringed by the action of the respondent. If the respondent could not hold the auction legally, the petitioner's participation in the auction could not provide any right to the State for the forfeiture of his advance bid amount. If the respondent could not hold the auction legally, the petitioner's participation in the auction could not provide any right to the State for the forfeiture of his advance bid amount. As such, if the petitioner participated in the auction and deposited the amount, the amount deposited by him could not be forfeited as the auction itself was not valid and was held in the breach of the order dated 28.2.92 passed by the Civil Court. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed. The order (Annex P/6) is quashed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.