M. S. A. Siddiqui ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to refrain from conducting re-auction of the shop No. 24, 1st Floor, CSC Basant Enclave, Self financing Group Housing Scheme, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the shop in question ). The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent to accept the petitioner s bid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. ( 2 ) IT is beyond the pale of controversy that the shop in question was advertised by the DDA for sale by public auction. The petitioner made a bid of Rs. 3,81,000. 00 which was accepted as the highest bid by the officer conducting the auction. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 95,250. 00 being an amount of earnest money The bid was put up before the Vice Chairman-DDA for acceptance. The Vice Chairman has not accepted the bid. The auction was conducted under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the bid by him was the highest and he has also deposited the earnest money and therefore his bid ought to have been accepted by the Vice Chairman. The rejection is arbitrary and hence liable to be struck down. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondent / DDA the highest bid of the petitioner is much less than the reserved price and thus the bid of the petiioner could not be confirmed. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Subhash Arora v. DDA, (CWP 822/83) decided on 30th September, 1983, has submitted that the action of the Vice Chairman- DDA in rejecting the petitioner s highest bid is arbitrary and is liable to be struck down. In that case, the learned Judge has held that the cancellation of the bid by the Vice Chairman on the ground that the auction price was less than the reserved price was illegal an arbitrary. In my opinion, the controversy raised in this case is no longer res integra. The ratio of this Court in Kusum Lata Khazanchi and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. , 1995 (35) DRJ 480 (DB)=61 (1996) DLT 37 squarely applies to the facts in this case. In my opinion, the controversy raised in this case is no longer res integra. The ratio of this Court in Kusum Lata Khazanchi and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. , 1995 (35) DRJ 480 (DB)=61 (1996) DLT 37 squarely applies to the facts in this case. In that case, similar arguments were advanced before the Division Bench. Rejecting the said contentions, the Division Bench held that there was no concluded contract between the parties. The rules and the terms and conditions of the auction vest in the Vice Chairman the ultimate power to accept bid and the petitioners having participated in the auction under the terms and conditions so notified, cannot raise the grievance if the Vice Chairman has in his discretion refused to accept the bid. In the instant case as per the statutory rules as was notified in the terms and conditions of the public auction notice the acceptance of the bid is clearly stated to be subject to the discretion of the Vice Chairman-DDA. He has rightly exercised his discretion against the petitioner by not accepting the bid as it was less than the reserved price. In this view of the matter, the exercise of discretion of the Vice Chairman, DDA is neither arbitrary nor capricious and cannot be found fault with. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition must fail and is dismissed. No order as to costs.