JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On September 28, 1990, 1 kanal and 12 marlas of land situate in village Sultanpur was sold to petitioner-Raghbir Singh for Rs. 5000/-. Respondent No. 2 objected to the sale. His objections were rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) exercising the powers of the Sales Commissioner. He filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Jalandhar. Vide order dated July 17, 1992, the appeal was accepted. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. It was dismissed vide order dated November 23, 1993. The petitioner then approached the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated July 7, 1997, the Financial Commissioner rejected the second revision petition. Aggrieved by the order dated July 7, 1997, the legal representatives of petitioner-Raghbir Singh (since deceased) have filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioners allege that the action of the respondent-authorities in cancelling the auction is wholly illegal. They pray that the order of the Financial Commissioner, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition, be quashed. 3. Written statements have been separately filed by both the respondents to contest the petitioners claim. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Mr. A.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the auction was held in conformity with the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 and that the authorities have erred in setting it aside. On the other hand Mr. G.K. Chawla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the orders passed by the authorities are in strict conformity with law and that these call for no interference. 6. The short question that arises for consideration is - Was the auction fair and in conformity with Rule 6 ? 7. The Chief Sales Commissioner vide his order dated July 17, 1992 has held as under :- "I have perused the record of the case. It is admitted that the auction was held at Rahon which is 7 kms. away from village Sultanpur. The only other bidders are two brothers from village Nangal Shanga, which is 9 km. away. No lambardar or Member Panchayat or other notable of village Sultanpur was present. This lends credence to the affidavit of the Sarpanch that the Rapat Roznamacha regarding publicity of the auction was entered in routine without making due publicity. away from village Sultanpur. The only other bidders are two brothers from village Nangal Shanga, which is 9 km. away. No lambardar or Member Panchayat or other notable of village Sultanpur was present. This lends credence to the affidavit of the Sarpanch that the Rapat Roznamacha regarding publicity of the auction was entered in routine without making due publicity. In this case, the counsel for the appellant has stated that parties were directed to give their written argument on 4.4.1991 which was done. But these arguments are not on the file and the final orders are recorded as on 27.3.1991. There is a cutting in the date of the final order." 8. On the basis of the above, it was held that the prescribed procedure had not been followed with regard to the publicity prior to the auction. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the Sales Commissioner was set aside. The findings as recorded by the appellate authority viz. the Chief Sales Commissioner were affirmed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division vide has order dated November 23, 1993. It was held that "the auction has not been made after giving proper publication. The auction has been made 7 kms. away from the village where the land is located. Only one person from the village was present in these proceedings." Thus, the revision petition was dismissed. Even the Financial Commissioner has found that proper publicity had not been given. Thus, the case has been remanded for re-auction. 9. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the findings as noticed above are not correct. In this situation, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the three authorities. 10. Mr. Cheema contends that an auction can be set aside only when the procedure as laid down in Rule 76 is not followed. The mere fact that somebody is willing to offer a higher price can be no ground for setting aside the auction. He places reliance of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1980 PLJ 87. 11. There is no quarrel with the proposition. People can offer a higher price out of spite. Merely because somebody offers a few hundred rupees more than the amount for which a particular property is auctioned may not normally furnish an adequate ground for annulling the auction. 11. There is no quarrel with the proposition. People can offer a higher price out of spite. Merely because somebody offers a few hundred rupees more than the amount for which a particular property is auctioned may not normally furnish an adequate ground for annulling the auction. However, in the present case, there are tell-tale circumstances which impinge upon the fairness of the auction. Firstly, the site of auction. Why was a place which was 7 kms. away from village Sultanpur chosen for conducting the auction ? Secondly, there is nothing on record to establish that proper publicity as contemplated under Rule 6 had been given. The rule requires the officers concerned to cause a proclamation of the intended sale. This notice had to be given at least 15 days prior to the proposed sale. Nothing has been produced on record to show that the provision had been complied with. The authorities have found that proper proclamation was not made. The fact that the persons present at the time of the auction were the two brothers of petitioner-Raghbir Singh, speaks for itself. It is also noteworthy that they were residing in a village which was 9 kms. away. Thus, the findings that there was no proper publicity appears to be wholly correct. Besides this, there is also the affidavit of the Sarpanch indicating that the report regarding publicity of the auction was made in routine and without "making due publicity". This clearly shows that the provision of Rule 6 had not been complied with. 12. No other point has been raised. 13. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the authorities. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.