Judgment : .1. Briefly stated the facts leading to the Writ petition are: The first respondent had notified in Gazette Notification No.48, that certain Silk Yarn is for auction and also brought it for sale in lots. The auction was held by the second respondent at the instance of the first respondent. The petitioner did participate in the auction for two lots, viz., Lot Nos.1604, and 1605/94 for Rs.27, 81, 000 and 13, 06, 000 and on the same day i.e., 21. 1995 it deposited 25% of the bid amount amounting to Rs.6, 96, 000 and Rs.3, 26, 500 respectively for the lots. As per the conditions of sale the balance amount shall be deposited within three days of sale, and the petitioner had taken Demand Draft for Rs.30, 64, 500 and contacted the first respondent to accept the same, and confirmation order in his favour, but the respondents did not pass any order on those bids. .2. On 2. 1995, the petitioner received the impugned order simply stating that its bid is rejected. The body of the letter is in total variance with the title, which indicates non-application of the mind of the respondent. As all the terms and conditions of the auction stood complied, it was not open to the respondents to arbitrarily act and entertain fashionable claims subsequent to the auction. The petitioner learnt that the importer of the goods had failed to comply with the formalities and deprived the customs of its dues. It appears after a week he paid a sum of Rs. 1, 25, 000 a very meager amount compared to what was actually due. .The first respondent, having undertaken to conduct auction, should have acted with certain amount of fairness, and ought not to have exercised the powers which would result in hardship on the bidders. There was legitimate expectation that the auction would be confirmed when all the requisite formalities were complied with by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner as a bidder has a right to have the bid confirmed unless the reasons for cancellation are reasonable and are in accordance with law. The unfettered power cannot be exercised, to reject the reasonable bid, by the authority. The second respondent also failed being an agent of the first respondent to inform the reasons and had merely despatched the impugned order. The unfettered power cannot be exercised, to reject the reasonable bid, by the authority. The second respondent also failed being an agent of the first respondent to inform the reasons and had merely despatched the impugned order. Once the auction takes place, the rights of a bidder intervene and the owner of the property who was a defaulter has no right in and over the property sold and at the most he could seek for refund of the excess amount in the hands of the auctioneers after adjustment of the amounts due to the principal (first respondent). There cannot be a private settlement between the parties subsequent to the auction. Under the circumstances the writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in proceedings No. Nil dated 2. 1995 and quash it as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction, and further direct the first respondent to confirm the bid in favour of the petitioner relating to lot Nos.1604 and 1605 in the auction conducted on 27. 1. 1995. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the claims of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Board takes charge of the goods for the purpose of performing the services and giving receipts therefor. As far as the import cargo is concerned, as soon as the goods are landed at the Harbour, after due tally, the vessel or her agent delivers the goods to the Board who takes custody of the goods, and the Board takes custody of the goods as baile and is statutorily interposed between the vessel and the consignee. Under Section 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short, the Act), the Board is responsible for the loss, destruction etc., of the goods. Section 48 of the Act empowers the Board to frame the scales of rates and the terms and conditions under which services are performed. After the Board takes custody of the goods the consignee submits the bill of entry to the Customs, and after verification of the Import licence and import documents, and after recovery of the Customs Duty , the Customs issues a pass order or makes an endorsement in the Bill of Entry passing the goods for home consumption. The vessel’s agent issues the delivery of the goods imported by him. The vessel’s agent issues the delivery of the goods imported by him. After receipt of the rates due to the Board for the services rendered, the goods are delivered to the consignee. 5. Under Section 58 of the Act, the rates are to be paid at the time of removal of the goods. The Board has a loan on the goods. If the goods are not cleared within the free period the scale of rates provides for recovery of demurrage charges, as an incentive to clear quickly and to avoid congestion in the port premises. It is open to the Board to sell the goods in public auction or by tender after notice as per Sections 61 and 62 of the Act if the goods are not cleared or abandoned. The sale proceeds are to be applied in the manner provided in Section 63 of the Act. If there is any deficiency, action can be taken for recovery under Section 131 of the Act. .6. In the instant case, two consignments said to contain raw silk in sales arrived at Madras harbour on 12. 1. 1994. They were not cleared within the free days for clearance. Thereafter demurrage charges began to accrue. None filed import application. Hence the Trust issued notice of sale on 12. 1994 and notice of clearance on 112. 1994 under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act. The goods were listed for sale by public auction held on 21. 1995. as Lot Nos.1604 and 1605. The petitioner paid 25% of the bid price as earnest money to the auctioneer, and it had to pay the balance amount to the Financial Adviser of the Trust on or before 4.00 P.M. on the third day calculated from the date of confirmation of sale. 7. It was specifically provided that the sale in public auction was subject to confirmation by the Collector of Customs. The question of Customs after 27. 1. 1995. In the meanwhile the consignee deposited the amount of import applications with the relevant documents for clearance through their shipping and clearing agents on 2. 1995 having deposited a sum of Rs.78, 637 and Rs.37, 943 respectively towards the charges due to the Trust. The Collector of Customs after due consideration permitted the consignees to clear the goods on compliance with all the formalities and payment of the dues on 2. 1995 by the proceedings dated 2. 1995 having deposited a sum of Rs.78, 637 and Rs.37, 943 respectively towards the charges due to the Trust. The Collector of Customs after due consideration permitted the consignees to clear the goods on compliance with all the formalities and payment of the dues on 2. 1995 by the proceedings dated 2. 1995. The Customs authorities rejected the offer of the petitioner at the auction held on 21. 1995 in respect of both the lots for two reasons viz., ( i ) due to low bid; and ( ii ) that the importer was making arrangement to clear the goods. When the action was being taken to deliver goods to the consignees, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus. 8. Section 128 of the Act saves the powers of the customs authorities and enforcement of the law relating to Customs. In view of the above facts the consignees and Customs department are necessary parties. The respondent further stated that there was no abuse of power, colourable exercise of power, of any mala-fide on the part of the respondent. There was no unreasonableness or infringement of principles of natural justice. Thus the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. W.M.P. Nos.24753 and 24754 of 1995 are filed by the consignees for impleading them as party-respondents, alleging that they are necessary parties. These petitions are allowed as their presence, for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition, is considered necessary, and moreover these applications were not opposed. Hence they be impleaded as additional respondents. .10. Shri V.Raghavachary, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner participated in the public auction held on 27. 1. 1995 and its bids in respect of two lots were the highest; it deposited 25% of the bid amount and was even ready to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time, but the respondents did not confirm his bids unreasonably and arbitrarily inspite of the petitioner approaching them; once the consignees failed to take the goods within the time, the respondent No.1 got the unfettered right to sell them in public auction. Accordingly the public auction was held for sale of the goods; after long lapse of time, the consignees cannot approach the respondent No.1 and the customs authorities for taking the goods by payment of necessary charges and duties to the respondent No.1 and the customs authorities; the consignees have no right to intervene after the goods were sold in public auction so as to deprive the petitioner; there was no justification or any reasonable ground not to confirm the bids of the petitioner. He pointed to Sections 61 to 63 of the Act and submitted that the first respondent had every right to sell the goods in question, and these sections do not indicate that the confirmation of sale should be subject to the orders to be passed by the Collector of Customs; according to him the powers of the first respondent are unfettered after the expiry of the given period, as indicated in Sections 61 and 62 of the Act. He drew my attention to Section 48 of the Customs Act also, to support his argument that the goods could be sold by the respondent No. 1. 11. Shri. R.Thiagarajan, the learned senior counsel for the additional respondents who are impleaded now, submitted that the Customs authorities having accepted the request of the consignees, passed orders for the release of goods which power the authorities have under Section 46 of the Customs Act, and the petitioner cannot question the same, if the petitioner is aggrieved, it can file appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act. He added that the confirmation of sale was subject to the approval of the Col lector of Customs. Since the customs authorities refused to confirm the sale on the grounds that the consignees have come forward to make necessary charges and duties, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of Mandamus. Hence the petitioner’s claim has no merits. .12. Shri.R.G.Rajan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 pointed out to Section 128 of the Act to contend that the power and authority of the customs authorities are saved; the customs authorities have every right to pass orders on the request of the consignees; the Customs authorities did not give approval for confirmation of the bids of the petitioner for two reasons already stated above by the learned counsel for the additional respondents. He submitted that the petitioner participated in the public auction for sale of goods pursuant to the auction notification which notification itself clearly states that the confirmation will be subject to the approval of Collector of Customs, and hence it is not open to the petitioner to seek for confirmation of his bids as a matter of right; the reasons given by the customs authorities for not approving the bids cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary; He also pointed out that although the respondent No.1 has stated in the counter affidavit that presence of the customs authorities was necessary as party for the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner did not take steps to implead the customs authorities. Hence it is not open to the petitioner to question the action of the customs authorities in refusing to approve the bids of the petitioner. Thus he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The public auction for sale of goods in question was held pursuant to the Notification. Conditions 9 and 12 of the said notification state that the Trust shall reserve the right to withdraw any of the items notified for sale without assigning any reason for such withdrawal, and that all the lots sold in the public auction are subject to confirmation by the Collector of Customs. It is not disputed, and it cannot be disputed that the petitioner participated in the public auction pursuant to the said auction notification for sale of goods in public auction. The condition No. 12 of the said Notification clearly states that all the lots sold in the public auction are subject to the confirmation by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner, having seen the said notification and the conditions contained in the said notification, has participated in the auction. Hence it is not open to it to contend that after the auction was held his bids should be confirmed without reference to confirmation of the Collector of Customs. 15. No doubt, under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act, the first respondent has got right to sell the goods. Section 128 of the Act saves the power and authority of the customs authorities. Section 128 of the Act reads thus:- “Nothing in this Act shall affect... 15. No doubt, under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act, the first respondent has got right to sell the goods. Section 128 of the Act saves the power and authority of the customs authorities. Section 128 of the Act reads thus:- “Nothing in this Act shall affect... (1) the right of the Central Government to collect customs duties or of any municipality to collect town duties at any dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty or pier in the possession of a Board, or (2) any power or authority vested in the customs authorities under any law for the time being in force.” 16. Be that as it may, the petitioner has participated in the auction subject to the conditions mentioned in the Notification. He has no right to claim confirmation of his bids unless they are confirmed by the Collector of Customs. The Collector of Customs did not confirm the bids on two grounds viz., (i.) the bids of the petitioner were low, and (ii.) the consignees have come forward to make necessary payments. These grounds cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. At any rate the petitioner inspite of the statement made by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that the Customs authorities are necessary parties, has not impleaded the said authority. In order to challenge the decision or action of the Collector of Customs in not confirming the bids of the petitioner, that authority ought to have been impleaded, and it is that authority which could justify its action. It is also not the case where any mala-fides are attributed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 17. Few decisions were cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relating to the scope and interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Customs Act. I do not think it necessary to refer to them having regard to the facts of this case, and in particular, the terms and conditions contained in the auction notification itself, reference to which is already made above. 18. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is liable to be dismissed. Hence it is dismissed. 18. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is liable to be dismissed. Hence it is dismissed. After I pronounced the order, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to suspend this order for a period of one week with a view to file an appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it is just and appropriate to suspend the operation of the order which is now pronounced for one week. Ordered accordingly.