JUDGMENT : Ch. P.K. Misra, J. - In this writ petition, the Petitioner challenges the auction held on 12-4-1999 by the Notified Area Council. Bhuban, in respect of Dalar Ferry Ghat - for the year 1999-2000. The main ground of challenge is that even though the Petitioner had offered a higher amount (Rs. 85,009/-), the same was not recorded and he was forced by the officials of the Notified Area Council (for short "the N; A.C.") to sign the bid-sheet wherein his offer was recorded as Rs. 80,000/-. It is alleged that the officials of the N.A. C. threatened the Petitioner by saying that if he did not put his signature on the bid-sheet, his security deposit and earnest money would not be refunded and, therefore, the Petitioner had no other option than putting his signature. But immediately thereafter, on 13-4-1999 he wrote a letter of objection to the Collector, Dhenkanal, vide Anrlexure-2, intimating that though he was prepared to offer Rs. 85,0001-, the said bid was not recorded and the N.A. C. settled 'the auction with opposite party No. 3, whose bid was for Rs. 80,0501-. On receipt of the aforesaid objection, the Additional District Magistrate, Dhenkanal directed the Executive Officer of the N. A: C. by his letter dated 13-4-1999 (Annexure-3) not to make any agreement with the bidder till finalization of the matter. 2. Learned Counsel for the N.A.C. has produced the relevant records. He draws our attention to a letter written by one Kanga Mallick addressed to the Collector, Dhenkanal. This letter is also dated 13-4-1999 and it has been mentioned therein that he (Kanga) was the highest bidder by offering Rs. 1.65.000/-, but the Ghat was not settled with him, 'and was put to re-auction. Golakh Chandra Mallick (opposite party No. 3 herein), who had originally offered Rs. 1,60,000/-, was allowed to' participate in the re-auction and the Ghat was settled with him for Rs. 80,0501-. According to the learned Counsel, such letters with vague allegations have been written by the unsuccessful bidders. Annexure-2 being such a letter, no notice of the same should be taken. Learned Counsel for the N.A.C. also drew our attention to the bid-sheet, which has been signed by all the bidders including the Petitioner who had taken part in the auction. He submitted that after the last bid was offered, signatures were obtained in the bid-sheet. Annexure-2 being such a letter, no notice of the same should be taken. Learned Counsel for the N.A.C. also drew our attention to the bid-sheet, which has been signed by all the bidders including the Petitioner who had taken part in the auction. He submitted that after the last bid was offered, signatures were obtained in the bid-sheet. The bid-sheet shows that the Petitioner's highest bid was for Rs. 80,0001-. Learned Counsel also pointed out that in the previous years when the same Ferry Ghat was auctioned by the Grama Panchayat, the highest amount collected was always below Rs..20,OOO/-. 3. Learned Counsel for Gokak Ch. Mallick, opposite party No. 3, who is the successful bidder, has submitted that his client is operating the Ferry Ghat after making payment of 50% of the bid amount, pursuant to the auction held on 12-4-1999. 4. The above facts would clearly indicate that the Petitioner has not been able to prove his allegation that he had been precluded from bidding higher amount or that his higher offer had not been recorded in the bid-sheet. He has put his signature in the bid-sheet which indicates that his highest offer was for Rs. 80.000/-. To add to it, it has also been admitted at the Bar that on the same day, the security deposit and the earnest money has been withdrawn by the Petitioner. Therefore, the objection letter written on the next day of the bid- cannot be taken to be bona fide and the order of the Additional Magistrate, who had no locus stand 'with regard to the auction, is of no assistance to the Petitioner,. 5. Law is well settled that in the matter of, auction, unless there is irregularity or illegality or violation of any terms and conditions of the auction. Court should not interfere. The Supreme Court in Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others has held as follows: When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a -public authority or the State, the Court must be satisfied - that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If, for example, the dispute is purely between two renderers the Court must,to very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation. If, for example, the dispute is purely between two renderers the Court must,to very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by two renderers mayor may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by Court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the Court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favor of one tendered or the other tendered. Therefore, unless the Court is,satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide the Court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival renderers. xx xx xx Hence before entertaining a writ petition and passing any interim orders in such petitions, the Court must carefully weigh conflicting public interests. Only when it comes to a conclusion that there is an overwhelming public interest in entertaining the petition, the Court should intervene. In para, 21 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has depreciated entertainment by the High Courts of such tender matters. In para 22,- it has also taken into consideration the view expressed in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, wherein, after examining a number of authorities, the Apex Court concluded as follows; 1. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. 2. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner; in which the decision was made. 3. The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision" without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. 4. The terms of the invitation tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. 5. The Government must have freedom of Contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative or quasi-administrative sphere. 4. The terms of the invitation tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. 5. The Government must have freedom of Contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision can be tested by the application of the "Eynesbury principle" of reasonableness and the decision should be free from arbitrariness, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 6. Quashing decisions may 'impose heavy administrative burden on the' administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 6. The facts of this case clearly indicate that substantial public interest is not involved. Settlement of the auction is not mal-fide as realization of the amount is about four times of what was being realized in the earlier years. It is also seen that the Petitioner himself has withdrawn the earnest money on the date of auction. Therefore, the conduct of the Petitioner in challenging the auction cannot be held to be bona fide so as to warrant interference by this Court. The action of the Petitioner in raising objection on the next day of the auction is nullified by his earlier action in withdrawing the security deposit on the date of auction and also signing the bid-sheet without murmur. It may be stated here that though we had asked the learned Counsel for the N.A. C. to produce the letter of the Petitioner asking for withdrawal of the earnest money, he has failed to do so. 'However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has admitted that refund of the security deposit has been taken on the same day. Therefore, bona fide of the Petitioner in raising objection has to be carefully weighed before interfering in this type of cases. 7. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the auction held 12-4-1999 by the Bhuban Notified Area Council in respect of Dalar Ferry Ghat is proper and it has been done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. The fact that the Ferry Ghat has been settled with the highest bidder shows the bona fide dealing of the N.A.C. in holding the auction. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to, cost. P.C. Naik, J. I agree. Writ petition dismissed. The fact that the Ferry Ghat has been settled with the highest bidder shows the bona fide dealing of the N.A.C. in holding the auction. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to, cost. P.C. Naik, J. I agree. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed