Order A substitution petition is being filed today on behalf of a certain Manju Pandey. In the substitution petition it is stated that she is the wife and the sole heir of the petitioner Kamal Kishore Pandey who died on 2.7.1997. A prayer is accordingly made for substituting her in place of her deceased husband. 2. The writ petition arises from a proceeding for the settlement of Sairat and the right to sue survives. The prayer for substitution is accordingly allowed. Let the name of the deceased petitioner be deleted from the records of this case and be substituted by that of her widowed wife. She has already appeared by filing a Vakalatnama. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. The dispute in this application relates to the settlement of Paterha taxi stand under Sadar Circle in the district of Saran for the year 1997-98 by the District Board, Saran at Chapra. For the settlement of the taxi stand an auction was held on 3.3.1997. In the auction Kamal Kishore Pandey, the original petitioner was admittedly the highest bidder making an offer of Rs. 8905/-. In terms of the auction notice he also deposited the bid amount as is evidenced from the receipt dated 3.3.1997 (Copy at Annexure-2). It, however, appears that before any parvana was issued in his favour a certain Prabhunath Rai made some offer which was one and a half time more than the bid made by the petitioner. On the offer being made the District Engineer, Saran by his memo dated 2.4.1997 directed the Assistant Engineer of the District Board to cancel the settlement made in the petitioner's favour. It was further directed that Prabhunath Rai be asked to deposit 50% of the amount offered by him and after the deposit was made to hold a fresh auction after giving the wide publicity for the settlement of taxi stand (Copy of the letter is at Annexure-1). It was at this stage that the petitioner came to this court and obtained an order of stay by order dated 17.4.1997. It was at this stage that the petitioner came to this court and obtained an order of stay by order dated 17.4.1997. When this case was taken up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the settlement made in the petitioner's favour was cancelled but Prabhunath Rai did not make any deposit as directed by the District Engineer in his letter dated 2.4.1997 and consequently no steps were taken for holding a fresh auction for the settlement of the taxi stand. 4. A prayer was therefore made to strike down the cancellation of the settlement earlier made in the petitioner's favour, on the basis of that letter. 5. From the counter affidavit filed in this case on behalf of the District Board; it appears that the position is slightly different. It is admitted that an auction was held on 3.3.1997 in which the petitioner was the highest bidder. The authorities, however, later realised that the reserve jama for the settlement of many stands, including the taxi stand in question, had been fixed at a very low rate and it was required to revise and re-evaluate the reserve jama for the settlement of the taxi stands. It was accordingly decided not to make any settlement on the basis of the previous auction and to hold fresh auctions after due revision and re-determination of the reserve jama of each of the taxi stands. An order was accordingly issued by the District Engineer under, his memo no.9 dated 4.4.1997 (Copy at Annexure-A). Later 'Specific directions were issued under memo no.5 dated 22.4.1997 concerning the taxi stand in question. In that letter it was directed to fix the reserve jama for the settlement of the taxi stand at Rs. 15,000/- and to ask the bidders to first deposit half of the reserve jama amount before participating in the auction. No fresh auction, however, could be held in view of the stay order passed by this court. 6. Having thus heard counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed in this case I find that the action of the authorities does not suffer from any infirmity. No fresh auction, however, could be held in view of the stay order passed by this court. 6. Having thus heard counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed in this case I find that the action of the authorities does not suffer from any infirmity. It is well settled that by virtue of being the highest bidder in the auction no vested and enforceable right accrued to the petitioner and it was open to the authorities even at that stage not to accept the bid and to direct for a fresh auction for the settlement of the taxi stand. I thus find that no case has been made out for any interference by this court in this matter. This application is accordingly dismissed.