JUDGMENT A.K. Ganguly, J. This writ petition, filed by the two petitioners, prays for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to execute tile agreement pursuant to the tender notice dated 28th September, 1993 by respondent no. 3, the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Siwan on the basis of the alleged acceptance of the petitioner's bid. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: An open tender was allegedly invited by the respondents for settling a plot of land which was owned by the Zila Parishad in the town of Siwan. The said tender was published on 28th September, 1993 in the daily issue of Hindustan (Hindi) inviting tenders till 1st October, 1993. The petitioners case is that pursuant to the said advertisement they jointly filed their tender and their case is that this tender being the highest, the same was accepted. The further case of the petitioners is that they deposited the amount of Rs. 14,000/- on 12th October, 1993 for which a receipt has been granted. A copy of the said receipt has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4. The petitioner's case is that since a receipt has been granted to them and their money has been accepted, they have got a legal right to insist that the respondents Zila Parishad must execute a lease agreement with them and make over possession to them of the plot in question. 3. It is not in dispute that over the plot of land which is the subject matter of tender, Chhath Puja is performed. It is the petitioners' case that out of the total area of land of 8 kathas 17 dhurs only in respect of land of 2 Katha 17 dhurs Chhath puja was being performed. Before tile aforesaid performance of Chhath Puja, in respect of the land in question a public interest litigation was previously initiated by Siwan Chhath Puja Samiti vide C.W.J.C. No. 6994 of 1991 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19th October, 1992 by which the following order was passed: "This public interest litigation has been filed on the ground that some constructions are being made by the respondents which would interfere with the celebration of the religious ceremony known as 'Chhath Puja'. It is stated on behalf of the State Government as well as the District Board that there is no construction which could interfere with the celebration of Chhath Puja. Having regard to the same, we pass the following orders disposing of this application : Let it be recorded that no construction would be made by any of the respondents which would in any way interfere with the celebration of the Chhath Puja. If any such puja was celebrated in the earlier years, it would be allowed to be celebrated in the same manner in the next years. This application is disposed of accordingly." 4. Thereafter a contempt proceeding was filed by the said Siwan Chhath Puja Samiti being M.J.C. No. 1714 of 1993 for the alleged violation of the order dated 19th October, 1902 as referred to above. In the said contempt proceeding the District Magistrate was directed to inspect the land in question and submit a report to the Court about the present position as to whether there is any hindrance in the performance of Chhath Puja in view of the proposed market complex by the District Board, Siwan and an order to that effect was passed by the Division Bench on 15th December, 1994 of which I was a party. Ultimately a report was submitted before the Division Bench by the District Magistrate, Siwan and on the basis of the said report, the contempt proceeding was disposed of on 12th January, 1995. 5. From a perusal of the said report it appears that the District Magistrate has made the following observation : "From perusal of the record of Zila Parishad, I found that in the year 1993 Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Siwan ordered for lease of 0.25 acre of the above mentioned plot in favour of Shri Shirajuddin and Sri Gharbharan Choudhary for 29 years on and annual rent of Rs. 14,000/-. Although the parties have deposited the amount, till date no agreement has been signed nor they have been delivered possession. It is my humble suggestion that R.S. Plot No. 1644 should remain in possession of the District Board and should not be leased out as there is every chance of this being used in such a manner as to hinder the performance of Chhath Puja in future. It is my humble suggestion that R.S. Plot No. 1644 should remain in possession of the District Board and should not be leased out as there is every chance of this being used in such a manner as to hinder the performance of Chhath Puja in future. At the same time the District Board may utilise the abovementioned land in such a manner so as to ensure that in future it may not cause any hindrance to the performance of Chhath Puja on the bank of river Daha." 6. The Division Bench of which I was a party by its order dated 12th January, 1995 accepted the said report and disposed of the said contempt proceeding on the basis of the said report. After that Zila Parishad, Siwan by an order dated 23rd February, 1995 took a decision not to proceed further with the execution of the proposed lease agreement with the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were not parties either to the previous writ petition or to the contempt proceeding and as such the said order does not bind them. They are further asserting that they have got a justiciable right on the basis of which they can ask for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the said Zila Parishad to execute the lease agreement in their favour. 8. In the background of these facts, learned counsel appearing for the Zila Parishad has asserted that no final decision accepting the offer of the petitioners was taken nor any final order was passed to that effect. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said Zila Parishad, it has been further stated that no final decision was taken to grant lease in favour of the petitioners nor any deed of lease was executed for the land in question. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the Zila Parishad that merely a receipt at Annexure-4 to this writ petition has been filed which simply shows the deposit of Rs. 14,000/- as bid money. On perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent Zila Parishad in this matter cannot be said to be either unreasonable or arbitrary. 14,000/- as bid money. On perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent Zila Parishad in this matter cannot be said to be either unreasonable or arbitrary. It is a fact that they proceeded with the proposal of leasing out the disputed land in question and invited tenders and pursuant to that the petitioners deposited the amount of Rs. 14,000/- but thereafter due to the development which took place in the said contempt proceeding, as stated hereinabove, the Zila Parishad authorities have given up the idea of proceeding further with the execution of the lease deed and they have issued Annexure-E, the order dated 23rd February, 1995 which is clear on this point. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has not been heard about the cancellation by the Zila Parishad about their proposal to lease out the land in question. This Court is unable to appreciate the said submission on the facts of this case inasmuch as no decision formally accepting the tender of the petitioners in respect of the land in question was made in their favour. The very fact that some amount of money has been deposited cannot be construed by this Court as accrual of any right in favour of the petitioners. 10. In this connection learned counsel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika reported in A.I.R. 1966 SC page 1313. In a somewhat different situation the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the said Constitution Bench judgment have come to the conclusion that an order by an authority, even if it is kept in file, without being communicated, does not become effective. The order becomes effective only after it is communicated to the person concerned. In the instant case also assuming that there is any order accepting the offer of the petitioners for the execution of the lease deed, the same was never communicated to the petitioners and as such without communication of the said decision, the order does not become effective in so far as the petitioners are concerned and as the order has not become effective, the same cannot be enforced through the writ petition. 11. 11. Apart from that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, assuming there is cancellation of any valid decision taken and communicated to the petitioners about the execution of the lease deed, the said action on the part of the respondent Zila Parishad cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable in view of the report submitted by the District Magistrate. But since no decision has been communicated to the petitioners accepting their offer in respect of the lease deed, the petitioners cannot make any complaint about the violation of principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. It is well known that principles of natural justice are not, as has been rightly observed, words written on tablets of stone. Those principles admit of situational adjustment and those principles can never be put in a strait jacket. As in the instant case I have already held that no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners, the principles of natural justice are not attracted and they normally operate when some right is taken away without hearing. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited many decisions, namely (1) Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in A.I.R. 1985 SC, page 167, (2) Mahabir Auto Stores & Others vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Others reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC page 1031, (3) S. Sarkar and others vs. A.D. Kriston, Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi & Others reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC page 1280 and (4) Niranjan Pipalia vs. Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Limited & Others reported in A.I.R. 1994 Calcutta, page 232 on the question that the State Government must act reasonably and without arbitrariness even in the contractual matters. This Court is of the opinion that the principles enunciated in those decisions are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case because of two reasons, namely, (i) no contract has been entered into between the parties which appears from the facts and circumstances of the present case and (ii) as I have already held, assuming a contract has been entered into, even by implication, then also the action of the respondent Zila Parishad, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, specially in the context of the report of the District Magistrate, cannot be called either unreasonable or arbitrary. 14. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. However, the Zila Parishad, Siwan is directed to refund the said amount of Rs. 14,000/- deposited by the petitioners within a period of a fortnight from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum to be calculated from the date of deposit of the said amount till actual payment is made. There will be no order as to cost.