JUDGMENT P.K. Deb, J.- The petitioner is coming again and again before this Court for redressal of his grievances regarding settlement of Islampur Cattle Hat and for refund of his security deposit. In this writ petition he has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner on 14.11.1995 in Sairat Settlement Case no. 223 of 1995 as contained in Annexure-10 by which the order dated 28.7.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Nalanda, in Misc. Sairat Case no. 2/94-95 as contained in Annexure-9 has been confirmed refusing to release Rs. 53,157/- deposited by the petitioner as security money for taking settlement of Islampur Cattle Hat known as Bardih Cattle Hat. 2. On 16.3.1992 an advertisement was issued from the office of Anchal Office, Islampur (Nalanda) to the effect that on 23.3.1992 at 11 A.M. auction will be held of four sairats including Baridih Cattle Hat whose reserve jama was fixed at Rs. 85,000/- and it was further mentioned that interested party taking part in auction shall have to deposit 10% of the fixed reserve jama before auction. In the said auction sale a number of persons took part as advertisement was not widely published and auction was closed in favour of one Ram Nagina Singh for Rs. 85,051/- only. But at the instance of the local M.L.A. irregularities and illegalities were done in the auction of Baridih Cattle Hat giving no wide circular, and the said auction in favour of Ram Nagina Singh was cancelled and again a decision was taken to hold the auction of Baridih Cattle Hat having reserve jama of Rs. 1,06,314/- and 8.6.1992 at 9 A.M. was fixed to be the date of auction at the venue i.e. the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa. As per sale notice security money was fixed at 50% of the reserve jama to be deposited before taking part in the auction. But, according to the petitioner, when such abnormal security deposit of 50% of the reserve jama was fixed no approval was taken from the appropriate authorities as per Rule 156 of the Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual. The petitioner on an information about the said notice contained in Annexure-2 deposited Rs. 53,157/- vide Annexure 3. But, according to the petitioner, when such abnormal security deposit of 50% of the reserve jama was fixed no approval was taken from the appropriate authorities as per Rule 156 of the Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual. The petitioner on an information about the said notice contained in Annexure-2 deposited Rs. 53,157/- vide Annexure 3. As security money was too high and reserve jama was also fixed at a high rate none had appeared to take part in the auction till 2.30 P.M. and as such, the auction was closed in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder for Rs. 1,07,000/-. But abruptly the petitioner was asked to deposit the balance amount within 4 P.M. According to the petitioner, there was no scope to deposit the balance amount within 4 P.M. as by that time when auction was closed bank transactions for withdrawal of money was closed. On 9.6.1992 the petitioner went to the office of Sub-divisional Officer, Hilsa, with Rs. 63,843/- in order to deposit the balance amount but the same was refused and petitioner was asked to move before the Additional Collector, Nalanda. On 11.6.1992 the petitioner moved before the Additional Collector, Nalanda, for accepting the deposit in one lump sum as per the sale notice but no order was passed. The petitioner again moved on 17.6.92 but no order was passed on Annexure-4. Then on 20.6.1992 the petitioner moved the Collector, Nalanda, requesting him to issue direction to Anchal Adhikari, Islampur, to accept the amount but no order was passed. As the fifteen days' time as per Rule 165 of the Khas Mahal Manual was going to expire, the petitioner again moved the Collector, Nalanda, on 22.6.1992 but to no effect. Then he moved on 28.6.1992 before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, but no order was passed. It could be understood that the respondent authorities by accepting Rs. 85,051/- from Ram Nagina has issued Parwana in his favour with a less reserve jama of Rs. 1,06,314/- in an arbitrary manner and as such, the petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 7832 of 1992 but as Parwana had already been issued, his writ petition was dismissed on 1.10.1992. Then the petitioner moved for refund of his security amount of Rs. 1,06,314/- in an arbitrary manner and as such, the petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 7832 of 1992 but as Parwana had already been issued, his writ petition was dismissed on 1.10.1992. Then the petitioner moved for refund of his security amount of Rs. 53,157/- but the respondents were not making any order on it and as such the petitioner had to move before the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar. Dy. Secretary of the Bihar Sarkar recommended for taking legal action in the matter but still no action was taken and then the petitioner moved in C.W.J.C. No. 10170 of 1992 for a direction upon the respondents to refund the security money. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction on 18.11.1994 vide Annexure-7. The direction was in the following manner :- "Having heard the parties, we have also perused the impugned order of the Additional Collector. In fact the claim of the petitioner has been rejected but no reason has been assigned. If the petitioner was defaulter, in terms of the advertisement or any other circular of the State Government, the Additional Collector should have pointed out in his order that for these reasons, he is not entitled to refund of the amount. In the background of the facts stated above, we, without expressing our opinion on the merit of the case, direct the Additional Collector, Nalanda, to examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law." The matter was again heard on the basis of the direction by this Court and ultimately vide Annexures-9 and 10 the petitioner has been refused to refund all the security amount on the ground that by 4 P.M. on the date of auction the petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount in lump sum and the security amount has been forfeited. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there was no direction imposed as per the advertisement as contained in Annexure-1 that balance amount of sale should be deposited by 4 P.M. on the date of auction rather as per clause-IV for whose violation the money has been seemed to be forfeited only mentioning was there that the balance amount. should be deposited in one instalment after the auction is closed. should be deposited in one instalment after the auction is closed. But for the representations made by the petitioner it appears that 4 P.M. was imposed afterwards as the time for deposit on the date of sale of the balance amount. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such condition was an extraordinary condition which is in total violation of Rule 161 of the Khas Mahal Manual and when such extra ordinary condition has been imposed the same was not approved as per mandate of Rule 156 of Khas Mahal Manual. It appears from the impugned orders that Rules 161, 156 and 155 have been construed by the respondent-authorities but nowhere it has been mentioned as to how the extraordinary condition has been imposed. It was not there in the sale notice as contained in Annexure-1. If sale notice is silent then the deposit of balance amount shall be governed by Rule 161 of the Khas Mahal Manual and if any extra ordinary condition has been imposed and I that too after the auction was closed then the same could not have (sic) binding upon the petitioner. It further appears that there was once a decision that in further settlement of the Hat in question if the petitioner takes part then his previous security deposit would be adjusted which means that the authorities were not considering about forfeiture of the security amount against the petitioner. It remains a disputed fact as to whether the condition imposed on deposit by 4 P.M. on the date 6f auction itself was imposed just prior to the auction or after the auction was closed when such extra ordinary condition was not included within the sale notice as contained in Annexure-2. It was mentioned in the order at Annexure-10 that if the extra ordinary condition imposed was not favouring the petitioner he ought to have challenged the same before appropriate forum before taking part in auction of just after taking part in auction. It appears that the petitioner challenged the subsequent auction and was pressing for acceptance of his balance amount in a lump sum within 15 days. As per Rule 161 of the Khas Mahal Manual there was no scope for his challenge to the condition which was not finding place in Annexure-2. It appears that the petitioner challenged the subsequent auction and was pressing for acceptance of his balance amount in a lump sum within 15 days. As per Rule 161 of the Khas Mahal Manual there was no scope for his challenge to the condition which was not finding place in Annexure-2. If any other agreement was arrived at beyond the scope of Rule 161 and if that condition got approval of the authority as per Rule 156 then perhaps forfeiture as claimed from the side of the respondents could be proper and justified in absence of any such condition. 4. In the counter-affidavit much stress has been given on Annexure-2 but I have found, as already mentioned, that Annexure-2 do not mention about unusual time frame beyond the scope of Rule 161. The direction given by this Court mentions about any other Government direction regarding forfeiture beyond the scope of Rule 161 and Rules 155 and 156 but the counter-affidavit is silent about it. 5. In that view of the matter, unless there is any special agreement arrived at before the auction was made with the petitioner and if he had voluntarily given consent to unusual time frame then the order of forfeiture is definitely bad in the eye of law. As the writ petition and the counter-affidavit are silent about any special agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the authority regarding the time frame beyond the scope of different provisions of Khas Mahal Manual, Annexures 9 and 10 are hereby quashed and the matter is sent back of Respondent no. 3 to decide the same afresh in the light of the observation made above. Such decision should be taken within a month next from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before Respondent no. 3 by the petitioner and Respondent no. 3 shall call for all the records of the case and decide the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within the time frame as mentioned above.