Honble VERMA, J. – The petitioner belonging to low income group person had purchased the plot No. 309 Sector I, Mandi Sadulshahar, Distt. Sriganganagar measuring 80x90 ft. in auction jointly alongwith three other persons who were joint cobidder i.e. Ram Singh s./o Mewa Ram, Jagan Nath Singh s/o Mansa Ram Soni and Ramesh Kumar s/o Jagannath, which auction had taken place in 1987. That total bid of Rs. 45,200/- as per auction sheet dated 18.9.1987 (Annex.1) 1/4th amount of bid money amounting to Rs. 11,300/- was depoisted on 19.8.1987. It is stated by the petitioner that as per agreement entered into between the cobidders among themselves, the petitioner was put into possession of his own share. The petitioner had also constructed one Pakka room and one Kachha Room in the year 1989. He has also taken water connection and is residing in the portion for the last seven years. The petitioner submits that he did not receive any communication from the respondents to the fact whether under condition No. 8(8) of the Condititions of 1973, his auction had ever been rejected by the Chairman of the Committee. It is submitted by the petitioner that he visited the office of Additional Collector-cum-Mandi Secretary in March 1995 for the purpose of depositing the balance amount and only there, he had come to know that his highest bid of dated 18.9.1987 had not been confirmed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Sriganganagar. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had not received any communication at all about the non- confirmation of auction bid and on coming to know of such an action having been taken by respondent No. 2, he had applied for the copy of order dated 21.11.1987 attached as Annex. 3. The petitioner submits that Annex. 3 was never received by him nor it was in the knowledge of petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order Annex. 3 on the ground that it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and further condition No. 8/(8) of the Condition of 1973 is violative of three petitioners fundamental rights as it does not give any guidelines for acceptance of rejection of bid and that powers can be used arbitrarily, violating the Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Certain other grounds have also been taken in the writ petition. (2). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents. Certain other grounds have also been taken in the writ petition. (2). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents. The facts are not denied. It is stated that order dated 21.11.1987 (Annex. 3) or Annex. R/1 was passed rejecting the auction in favour of the petitioner had he was directed to take his money back because of the reason that his bid had not been accepted and he was conveyed of the decision, the petitioner has no cause of action and writ petition is not maintainable. The first question which arises for determination is whether any order or notice as contained in Annex. 3 or Annex. R/1 was ever received by the petitioner or was ever dispatched by respondents. (3). The notice Annex. 3 is addressed to Jagannath, Ram Singh, Arjun Singhand Ramesh Kumar, residents of Sardulshahar. This notice does not contain or men- tion any other particulars in the address except the names of parties and the name of city. It is doubtful whether by writing the name of the parties and city, notice can reach the party concerned. (4). Vide order dated 26.2.1997, a direction was passed by this Court to therespondents to produce in the Court the record showing the dispatch of letter Annex. 3 and also the proof of receipt of same by the petitioner. Record has been produced, but so far the record of dispatch and receipt is concerned, it is stated by the counsel for the respondent that same is not available and has been misplaced. The counsel for the respondents has been informed by the office of Addl. Collector-cum-Secretary, Mandi Development Samiti, Hanumangarh vide his letter No. 3963 dated 23.4.1997 to the fact that despite the search having been made, required record is not traceable. Only the record of dispatch or receipt could have shown the actual dispatch of letter in question which has not been produced. Apart from non- production of record, even the addresses mentioned in Annex. 3 and Annex. R/1 is totally incomplete and it is doubtful whether any intimation sent on this incomplete address could ever reach the parties. It is, therefore, held that notice Annex. 3 or Annex. R/1 had not reached the petitioner and the averments of the writ petition in this regard is accepted. (5). 3 and Annex. R/1 is totally incomplete and it is doubtful whether any intimation sent on this incomplete address could ever reach the parties. It is, therefore, held that notice Annex. 3 or Annex. R/1 had not reached the petitioner and the averments of the writ petition in this regard is accepted. (5). Condition No. 8(8) of the Conditions of 1973 provides that result of auction shall be communicated to the Chairman of the Committee who shall pass the final order either confirming or rejecting the bid, the decision of Chairman thereon shall be final. Condition 8(8) is reproduced as under : ``The result of the auction shall be communicated to the Chairman of the Committee who shall pass final order either confirming or rejecting the bid. The decision of the Chairman be final. (6). Even though the notice Annex. 3, as has been held above, did not reach the petitioner as alleged, but still reading of Annex. 3 itself shows that no reason whatsoever has been given by the Chairman of the Committee for not accepting the bid. The notice Annex. 3 reads as under : txUukFk iq=k eUlkjke lksuh] Jh jke flag iq=k esokjke dqEgkj] Jh vtqZu flag iq= taxflag] Jh jeskdqekj iq=k txUukFk vxzoky lk- lknqy kgjA ``You are hereby informed that Chairman of the Development Samiti of Mandi, Sardulsahar, Sector I, has not accepted your bid dated 18.9.1987 in regard to plot No. 309. You are, therefore, informed to be present in the office alongwith receipt so that proceedings for refunding the amount be taken in your presence. (7). The above order just show that no reason whatsoever has been given bythe concerned authority in rejecting the bid. There are no guildelines provided under under condition No. 8(8) nor any reasons had been mentioned in written statements for rejecting the bid. The action of respondent No. 2 in passing the order Annex. 3 is totally arbitrary. The condition No. 8(8) as reproduced above even gives powers to Chairman to confirm or reject the bid without any reason whatsoever. There are no guildelines provided under under condition No. 8(8) nor any reasons had been mentioned in written statements for rejecting the bid. The action of respondent No. 2 in passing the order Annex. 3 is totally arbitrary. The condition No. 8(8) as reproduced above even gives powers to Chairman to confirm or reject the bid without any reason whatsoever. There is every likelihood that absolute power without any guidelines can be mis- used or can be used arbitrarily violating the Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the condition No. 8(8) does not give any guidelines or does not provide any reasons for rejecting the bid and reduce the decision absolutely on the Chairman of Committee cannot be held to be intra vires and, therefore, violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. (8). for the reasons mentioned above, writ petition is allowed. Order Annex. 3 dated 21.11.1987 is quashed. The bid was conducted in the year 1987. The petitioner is said to have constructed some construction on the plot in question and it will be fit case where petitioner be directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of 4 months from the date of order and on the amount so have been deposited, competent authority shall confirm the bid in accordance with law and to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed as mentioned above without any order as to costs.