Honble JAIN, J.–It is alleged that the petitioner is a private limited company. In compliance of the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board published in Rajasthan Patrika for auction of a plot for construction of a hotel in Sector No.6, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, the petitioner- company participated in auction alongwith 16 others and the petitioners being the highest bidder deposited 10% of the bid amount on 20.12.95 and also deposited 15% of the bid amount on 21.12.95, in all Rs. 18,37,000/-. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests no communication was received by the petitioner-company and it received the communication only on 23.2.96 by the Resident Engineer vide Annex-7 intimating that as the same was rejected by the Accounts Officer vide his order dated 13.2.96 and the petitioner was asked to collect the amount so deposited. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that when the officer of the Board, who was holding the auction was authorised to reject or accept the bid as per terms and conditions of the auction and once the auction was held as continued the petitioners bid was the highest, the order (Annex- 7) rejecting the auction on the basis of communication, is bad and without jurisdiction and further the cancellation order, which was passed by the Accounts Officers is liable to be dismissed. (2). On the other hand Mr. Paras Kuhad learned counsel for the Housing Board submits that the respondents was the final authority to accept or reject the bid of the highest bidder and no bidder can claim vested right for securing final sale in his favour merely because he had the highest bid and in the instant case after considering the material on the record and the decision of the High Power Committee, the Chairman of the Board ultimately has not approved the final bid and the same was communicated by the Resident Engineer through the Accounts Officer, therefore, the petitioner has no vested right to challenge the same, and he has also relied upon Laxmi Kant vs. Satya Bhans case (1). (3). The question for determination is whether the Accounts Officer has jurisdiction to cancel the bid and the effect of non- supply of the letter/reasons, despite demands. (4). (3). The question for determination is whether the Accounts Officer has jurisdiction to cancel the bid and the effect of non- supply of the letter/reasons, despite demands. (4). Undoubtedly the petitioner has no right to get the reasons communicated but at the same time this court can see the record to find out its justification and to see whether the reasons so mentioned are justified or not. So also the reasons, so mentioned, could be judged and cannot be supplemented by a fresh reason in the shape of additional affidavit or otherwise. (5). I have perused the relevant record which was placed before me by Mr. Kuhad and I am satisfied that it is not merely the Accounts Officer who has rejected the bid as alleged but after considering all the relevant material bid was not accepted and no confirmation was made by the authority concerned and the Chairman of the Board has also not approved on 6.2.96. Therefore, under the circu- mstances, when the bid was not accepted, the petitioner has no subsisting right to challenge the same, therefore, no relief can be granted. (6). So far as the argument that he is entitled to get interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner, which has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kuhad submits that the letter Annex.7 was received by the petitioner on 9.3.96 but despite that they have not approached and collected the amount so deposited and rather unnecessarily written letters. Moreover, the order dated 16.2.96 (Annex.9) was passed by the Chief Accounts Officer whereby the petitioner was again asked to contact the aforesaid authority. He further submits that the grant of interest on the ground that they are duty bound to hand over the cheque to the petitioner, is not proper and sustainable. (7). Shri Mehta submits that if the bid was not accepted they should have handed over the cheque but despite number of representations the Housing Board never replied, rather he was forced to run from pillar to post without its fault and, therefore, it is entitled to get the interest. (8). (7). Shri Mehta submits that if the bid was not accepted they should have handed over the cheque but despite number of representations the Housing Board never replied, rather he was forced to run from pillar to post without its fault and, therefore, it is entitled to get the interest. (8). Considering the above facts in the given case, I deem it proper that the petitioner is entitled to get the refund alongwith the interest and I accordingly direct the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner alongwith the interest at the rate of 12% per annum, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. (9). With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 30.8.96/8.10.96 stand discharged.