JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is a co-operative society. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the auction of the fishing rights knocked down in favour of respondent No. 4, in the auction held on 7.9.2000 at Sirsa in respect of fishing rights of areas consisting of Sirsa, Fatehabad and Hissar for the year 2000-2001. It has further been prayed that fresh auction for the fishing rights be ordered. 2. Before adverting to the claim of the petitioner, brief facts may be taken note of. The Government of Haryana had issued a notification dated 24.5.1996 and formulated the Haryana Fisheries Rules, 1996 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Punjab Fisheries Act, 1914 and Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897. According to these regulations various zones have been carved out for regulating fishing in the public works in the State. In the present writ petition the relevant zone consists of districts of Hissar, Fatehabad and Sirsa. Every year the fishing rights are allotted by a public auction on or after 1st of July. It is provided in the rules that no person shall be allowed to bid in the public auction unless he has deposited the amount specified as earnest money in cash with the auctioning authority. Another regulation provides that in case the highest bid is given by a person other than a Fisherman Cooperative Society then the same can only be accepted if it is at least 10% higher than the highest bid, if any, of a fisherman Co- operative Society. It is also provided in the rules that in case the highest bid is below the average of the contract amount received during the previous three years the auctioning authority may not accept the highest bid or the bid of the Fisherman Cooperative Society and in such event the fishing rights are to be re-auctioned. It may also be noted that the contract amount received during the previous three years in respect of the zone consisting of districts Fatehabad, Hissar and Sirsa are as under :- Year Amount 1997-98 Rs. 13,14,000/- 1998-99 Rs. 23,16,000/- 1999-2000 Rs. 9,86,000/- Auction for this zone for the year 2000-2001 was held on 6.7.2000 at Sonepat and the highest bid received in this auction was Rs. 7 lakhs. 13,14,000/- 1998-99 Rs. 23,16,000/- 1999-2000 Rs. 9,86,000/- Auction for this zone for the year 2000-2001 was held on 6.7.2000 at Sonepat and the highest bid received in this auction was Rs. 7 lakhs. This was not accepted by the auctioning authority as it was below the average contract amount received during the previous three years, and, therefore, reauction was ordered. Several successive re-auctions had to be held by the government as in none of these any bid for an amount exceeding the average amount of the contract amount received during the previous three years was received. The details of re-auctions and the highest bid received therein which were not accepted is as under :- Date Amount 13.7.2000 Rs. 10,10000/- 27.7.2000 Rs. 5,00,000/- 4.8.2000 Rs. 5,00,000/- 10.8.2000 Rs. 3,10,000/- After rejecting the aforesaid bids another reauction was held on 17.8.2000 wherein highest bid was Rs. 5,00,000/- from one Kanwar Pal was received. Since the fishing season was going by and it was clear that nobody was coming forward with a bid exceeding the average of the contract amount received in the previous three years, the auctioning authority accepted the bid for Rs. 5 lakhs so that the State Government may not lose precious revenue. However, as per the requirement of the rules, Kanwar Pal was to deposit 1/3rd of the total amount which he failed to do and instead allowed his earnest money to be forfeited. It is thereafter that another auction was ordered for 7.9.2000 for which a notice was issued on 1.9.2000. In this notice initially the earnest money was specified as Rs. 10,000/- but it was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by issue of a memo. In this auction the bid of Rs. 3,54,000/- given by the respondent No. 4, being the highest, was accepted. It is against acceptance of this bid that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner society claims that it had duly deposited the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- through its Chairman Sh. Shish Pal Kamboj who had participated in the auction and had given a bid of Rs. 3,12,000/-. It is further claimed that he was asked to produce the authority letter at the time of auction which admittedly he did not produce. The petitioner society claims that it had duly deposited the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- through its Chairman Sh. Shish Pal Kamboj who had participated in the auction and had given a bid of Rs. 3,12,000/-. It is further claimed that he was asked to produce the authority letter at the time of auction which admittedly he did not produce. However, it is claimed that he had pointed out that the necessary resolution and the authority letter had been filed by him in the earlier auction held on 17.8.2000 and as such it was not necessary to insist on the production of the authority letter again in the re-auction on 7.9.2000. It is further alleged that Shishpal was not allowed to give any further bid in this auction. Thus, according to the petitioner, it had been prevented from participating in the bid illegality. The other line of attack, was that the bid of Rs. 3,54,000/- admittedly was below the average of contract money received during the three preceding years and it was, therefore, incumbent upon the auctioning authority not to accept that bid and order another re-auction. 4. Notice of motion was issued and replies have been filed by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner has been controverted by the official as well as the private respondents. It has been pointed out that despite wide publicity and numerous auctions and re-auctions held, no bid exceeding the average amount of the contract money received in the preceding three years was forthcoming. This, according to the respondents, was on account of scanty rains and low inflow of water in these districts. This resulted in insufficient migration of fish in the Ghagar Course. This was further evident from the fact that even though a bid of Rs. 5 lakhs was accepted in the re-auction held on 17.8.2000 yet the successful bidder chose to get his earnest money forfeited instead of honouring the bid. It was, therefore, stated that the auctioning authority, in the best interest of the State, had accepted the bid of Rs. 3,54,000/- from the respondent No. 4. The respondents also controverted the claim of the petitioner that it had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- and that it had been prevented from participating in the auction through its Chairman Shishpal. It was explained that on 7.9.2000 initially Shishpal had deposited earnest money of Rs. 3,54,000/- from the respondent No. 4. The respondents also controverted the claim of the petitioner that it had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- and that it had been prevented from participating in the auction through its Chairman Shishpal. It was explained that on 7.9.2000 initially Shishpal had deposited earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of the society and the necessary entry was made in the register. However, after making the entry he was asked to submit the letter of authority which he could not submit and in the absence of the same he agreed to participate in the auction in his individual capacity. In the register, therefore, the name of the company was struck off and instead his name was incorporated. It was further contended that the fact, that this correction had been made before the start of the auction with his consent, is evident from the auction sheet as well in which only the name of Shishpal appears. There is no mention of the name of the petitioner society in this sheet. It was also pointed out that even the claim of the petitioner, that it had furnished a copy of the resolution and authority letter in favour of Shishpal in the auction held on 17.8.2000, was factually incorrect. No such document had been filed in that auction as well. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the official respondents. He has further stated that because of the stay operating against him in the present litigation he was suffering loss on daily basis as the fishing season was going by. According to him the present litigation was a negative attempt on the part of the petitioner who was neither willing to execute the bid itself at Rs. 3,54,000/- nor was allowing the respondent No. 4 do it. The learned counsel offered that he was prepared to part with the fishing rights in favour of the petitioner if the petitioner was ready to take up the contract for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,54,000/-. 6. In order of the resolve the controversy I had sent for the records of auctions held on 17.8.2000 and 7.9.2000. From the records it is evident that on 7.9.2000 initially the earnest money had been entered in the name of the petitioner society. 3,54,000/-. 6. In order of the resolve the controversy I had sent for the records of auctions held on 17.8.2000 and 7.9.2000. From the records it is evident that on 7.9.2000 initially the earnest money had been entered in the name of the petitioner society. However, the register also shows that the name of the petitioner society was struck off and instead the name of Shishpal was incorporated. The auction sheet also shows that at the time of recording bids Shishpal had participated in his personal capacity as it contains no mention of the name of the Society. Unlike the register for receipt of earnest money, the bid sheet does not show that the name of the petitioner society has been first entered and then struck off later. It has, therefore, been correctly pointed out that Shishpal had participated in the auction on 7.9.2000 only in his personal capacity. It could not be explained that in case Shishpal was prevented from taking part in the auction on behalf of the petitioner society, then how he could give even a single bid. It is a matter of record that he did offer a bid for Rs. 3,12,000/- entered in his name in the auction sheet. This shows that he had agreed to participate in his individual capacity. The respondents have also correctly pointed out that in the auction held on 17.8.2000 no resolution or authority letter had been filed by the petitioner. In the earnest money register for that auction the earnest money received from the petitioner society is duly entered with a remark that the same was being received "subject to submission of authority letter today". It is evident from that record that no such authority letter was filed and, therefore, the bid sheet shows that neither the petitioner nor Shishpal had participated in the auction. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the authority letter had been furnished earlier in the auction held on 17.8.2000 has been found to be incorrect. It is, therefore, evident that petitioner society had not participated in the auction held on 7.7.2000 and as such has no locus standi to challenge the auction at all. 7. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the authority letter had been furnished earlier in the auction held on 17.8.2000 has been found to be incorrect. It is, therefore, evident that petitioner society had not participated in the auction held on 7.7.2000 and as such has no locus standi to challenge the auction at all. 7. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice and fair play, and to judge the bonafides of the petitioner, the offer of respondent No. 4 that he was willing to part with the fishing rights of this zone if the petitioner society was ready to take it over was put to the counsel for the petitioner who sought time to seek instructions. Today, he had fairly conceded that his client was not ready to take the fishing rights for a sum of Rs. 3,54,000/-. This attitude of the petitioner does lend credence to the argument advanced on behalf of respondent No. 4 that the petitioner by means of this litigation not only want to cause harm to him but also to the State. From the facts already noticed earlier it is clear that if another re-auction were to be held, the State may not get even Rs. 3,54,000/- as had been offered by respondent No. 4. I, therefore, deprecate this unreasonable attitude of the petitioner. As already observed not only the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the auction but it is not even ready to take over the fishing rights for a sum of Rs. 3,54,000/- offered by respondent No. 4. I, therefore, feel that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Normally I would have ordered for payment of costs by the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. However, I am refraining from doing so in view of the fact that the petition is a fisherman co- operative society and consequent burden will have to be shifted on to its poor members. Petition dismissed.