Honble VERMA, J.–In response to an advertisement for auction of plots in Saket Nagar Colony, Beawar, the petitioner had participated in the auction and was declared the highest bidder in respect of plot No. 7 @ 245/- per Sq. Meter. The Plot No. 7 measured 164.79 Meters and the price of the plot was assessed as Rs. 40,351.50/-. As per the conditions of the auction, the petitioner had deposited 25%of the cost of the plot on the same date vide receipt No.83/86 of Book No.83/1985. The petitioner had been waiting for a communication from the respondent-Housing Board and had even personally contacted the respondent No.2 in his office. The petitioner had sent number of letters on 15.7.1991, 13.8.1991, 6.9.1991 and 27.2.1992. The petitioner have been praying for handing over the possession. Thepetitioner had even approached the District Forum, Ajmer, by filing a complaint. During the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the respondents vide letter dated 25.11.1992, accepted the bid and issued the letter to the petitioner vide Annex.4 on 25.11.1992. The respondent in addition to the price, charged interest @ 12% from 19.1.1990 to 18.11.1992 amounting to Rs. 13,719.51/- in additionto the interest another amount of Rs. 1,353/- was charged as legal expenditure. (2). The petitioner being aggrieved by the excess charges made by the respondent, moved the District Forum once again on 24.1.1993 praying that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the delay and negligence, non-action or omission on the part of the respondent-Housing Board. Vide Annex.5, the DistrictForum on 30th July 1993 accepted the plea of the petitioner and set-aside the charging of interest amounting to Rs. 13,719.51/- as well as the legal expenditure charged from the petitioner. The complaint was allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent-Housing Board by further awarding Rs. 1,000/- as damages and Rs. 500/- of litigation. This Annx.5 was challenged by the HousingBoard before the Rajasthan Dispute Redressal Commissioner, Jaipur, and the order Annex.5 was stayed. The State Commission had finally heard the appeal of the Housing Board and the order Annex.5 was set aside on 1.11.1996 holding, that the petitioner was not a consumer, as the matter relates to the auction of the immovable property and it was directed that the complainant/petitioner should have hisremedy either by filing a civil suit or the civil writ petition. (3). (3). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner that he was always prepared to deposit the remaining balance auction-amount and only because of the reason the Department did not take any action from January 1990 to 25th Nov. 1992, the petitioner is not responsible for the delay and negligence of the Housing Board and as per the rules, the bid ought to have been accepted or rejected within one month of the date of the bid and if the Housing Board itself had taken two years in taking a final decision in accepting the bid, the petitioner was not liable to be penalised on that reason. Pra-yer has been made to quash the action of charging interest from the petitioner on the remaining amount, and further to hand over the possession of Plot No.7 to the petitioner and to award further exemplary cost against the respondents. (4). Despite number of opportunities have been given, no reply was filed and it was stated on 29th August 1997 that no reply is required to be filed and the mattercan be disposed of without any written statement on the basis of the record. The record of the case was also produced for perusal before the Court. (5). From the record it is clear that the bid auction was held on 19th Jan. 1990. It is revealed from the record that no time limit has been fixed by the Rajasthan Housing Board in accepting or rejecting the bid. It is also revealed from the recordthat the papers were put up before the authorities in the Month of March and June 1990 for confirming the bid. The petitioner had also requested the Housing Board in the Month of June 1990 to take further action and to hand-over the possession. The Housing Engineer had also written to the Commissioner on 4th June 1991 to finalise the case of the petitioner. There is numerous letters written by the HousingEngineer to the Commissioner and also written by the petitioner to finalise the case of the petitioner. The Housing Engineer had been writing numerous letters time and again in June, July, August, October, Nov. 1991 and numerous letters to the authorities in the Month of May and August 1992 for finalising the case. Even the Chairman to the Board had informed the authorities to take final action. The Housing Engineer had been writing numerous letters time and again in June, July, August, October, Nov. 1991 and numerous letters to the authorities in the Month of May and August 1992 for finalising the case. Even the Chairman to the Board had informed the authorities to take final action. One ShriRakesh Gupta, Accounts Officer vide his letter dated 4th June 1992 wrote to the Resident Engineer to charge interest @ 12% on the balance amount of the auction money from the petitioner and ultimately the order dated 25th Nov. 1992 was passed whereby amount of Rs. 13,719.51/- was charged as interest @ 12% despite the negligence, omission, non-action of the Board in confirming the bid, anotheramount of Rs. 1,353/- was also imposed on the petitioner towards some legal charges without showing the details and nature of such charges. (6). Because of the reason that in the instructions issued by the Board in regard to holding of auction, no time limit seems to have been fixed for accepting or rejecting the bid, it has been left on the whimsical will of the Board authorities tosit over the matter for years together and that too impose interest which amounts to penalty on the successful bidder for the non-action of the respondent-Board. It is highly arbitrary. Instead of paying damags to the auction bidder for sitting over the matter for years together in completing the formalities, the Board without any authority and legal sanctity penalises the bidder. It is the case where the Boardshould have fixed the maximum time limit of confirming or rejecting the bid. To my opinion 60 days time shall be sufficient time for taking such an action. The Board is bound to inform the bidder within a period of 60 days from the date of the auction to the effect whether the auction is accepted or not. To my opinion 60 days time shall be sufficient time for taking such an action. The Board is bound to inform the bidder within a period of 60 days from the date of the auction to the effect whether the auction is accepted or not. In case the bid is accepted within 60 days, the bidder should be allowed reasonable time to deposit the bala-nce auction money, and only and only then after such information having been sent, if the bidder does not deposit the auction money, the reasonable interest can be charged from the petitioner/bidder and similarly, if the bid is not accepted an intimation must be sent to the higher bidder in this regard within a period of 60 days alongwith refund of the earnest money deposited and in case the bid is not accepted and refund is not made immediately after 15 days of the 60 days time period, the highest bidder shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% p.a., if the earnest money is not refunded within two weeks of the said 60 days time. The Board should make regulations or issue instructions in this regard for the guidance of the Officers who deal with the bid matter so that the citizen should not suffer of any uncertainty. (7). In the present case after going through the case file of the respondent-Board, it is very clear that the competent authority, without any reason whatsoever,had been sitting over the matter for years together without any plausible explana- tion. Despite the reminders being sent by the Resident Engineer to the Competent Authority for according the confirmation of the bid and despite the fact that the petitioner had even approached the District Forum by filing a complaint for finalising the case of the petitioner, no action was taken by the Board. In my opinion, insuch a situation, if no reasons whatsoever are given and the rights of the citizens are kept in uncertainty and in suspension without even acknowledging any of the letter or reminder of the citizen for implementation of his rights when he had already deposited 25% of the bid money, the complaint section of the District Forum must interfere and complaint is maintainable for claiming damages from the res-ponsible Officer or Officers. In the present case there was no justification for the Board for keeping silence on acceptance of the bid for about two years and as such the Board had no right whatsoever to charge any interest because of its own inefficiency, negligence, inaction and omission in intimating and acceptance of the bid for about two years. Had the Board taken action within the reasonable time,the bidder would have saved the interest and in case the Board take years together for coming to a final conclusion, the Board is not authorised to charge interest for its own delay and negligence. Therefore, charging of interest of the amount of Rs. 13,719.51/- is illegal and unjustified. Similarly, no details have been given for charging of the amount of other legal charges. The Board is supposed to give thedetails of legal charges being charged from the bidder. It is not clear from the present case whether this amount of Rs. 1353/- has been charged towards some legal expenses incurred or for defending the Court cases filed by the petitioner. In case the amount has been charged because of any Court cases, it cannot be so charged from the petitioner towards the cost of the house. Rather, if any legal char-ges are chargeable, the Board is supposed to inform the bidder of the details of such charges payable but it cannot be added in the cost towards the house. (8). For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The action of the Board in charging 12% interest on the remaining amount of the auction money i.e. 30270/- @ 12% p.a. is held to be illegal and not justified. A writ is issuedto the respondent-Board to hand-over the possession of Plot No.7, Saket Nagar, Beawar, to the petitioner within 15 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order on deposit of Rs. 30270/- as the remaining amount by the petitioner, if this amount has already not been deposited. If any excess amount has been recovered from the petitioner other than Rs. 30270/- such excess amount shall be refundedback to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled the cost of the writ petition which is assessed as Rs. 2,000/-.