Order Tapen Sen, J.-Heard the parties. 2. The process in which a Municipal Tank has been settled in favour of the Respondent No.4 (Anil Kumar Soni) is the bone of contention in this Writ Application. By Annexure-1, the Special Officer, Daltonganj Municipality issued a Public Notice dated 06.03.2002 giving wide publicity of the fact that a Public Auction in relation to various Tanks including a Municipal Tank neal\Daltonganj Police Station would be held on 16.03.2002 at 3.00 P.M. for settlement of the same for the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. The Reserve Jama was fixed at Rs. 2,27,150.00 and security money at Rs.11,357.00. The aforementioned Notice was circulated amongst various authorities of the Government including the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Deputy Development Officer, Palamau, Additional Collector, Palamau, Additional District Magistrate for Law and Order, Palamau, Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, District Liaison Officer, Palamau, District Co-operative Officer, Palamau, Block Development Officer, Sadar and Circle Officer, Sadar, Daltonganj. It was also directed that the said Notice be put up on the office Notice Board and intimation thereof be circulated to the members of the public by beat of drums. A copy was also forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for information. 3. The reason why the aformentioned facts are being stated is to record that the aforementioned notice regarding holding of the proposed Auction on 16.03.2002 was given the widest possible circulation. 4. On 08.03.2002, the District Cooperative Officer, Palamau informed the Executive Officer, Daltonganj Municipality, that the Petitioner (Daltonganj Thana Matasyajeevi Sahayog Samiti Limited, Balwatika) had resolved in their meeting held on 04.03.2002 that they were willing to take the settlement in their name. Consequently, the earnest money for participating in the open Auction was deposited and the Petitioner along with the Respondent No. 4 and other four persons, participated in an open Auction on 16.03.2002 in the office of the' Daltonganj Municipality. The highest bid was knocked down at Rs. 2,52,102/- According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioners were willing to take the Tank at the same rate offered by the Respondent No. 4 and accordingly, they wrote a letter on the same jay addressed to the Special Officer, Daltonganj Municipality informing them that they were willing to take the Tank on settlement at the same rate and requested that they be allowed to deposit the money etc. 5. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, once such a letter/offer was made by a Co-operative Society, it was entitled to preference. In support of such a contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon Government Circular No. 8(S) 06-00-12/74 L.R. dated 03.05.1974, which reads thus :- "W ~ if f.rrn JI'Rft 1~"lIq"1 ~ ~ -$ ~ 11{~: ~ q;'f.t -$ ~ mcm -:r f.:Iuf 1~~ql ~ ~ em Ji~ ~ -$ (§qffi ~ "3Cffi ~ if W ~ 'ffCI; ~ fci; 1~"llql ~ ~ em \if 'WT m ctiT ~ ~~. ~ "* ~ >1~ 6. From a perusal of the above, it is apparent that (sic) willing to take settlement of Tanks should be given preferences if the given offer is matching to the highest bid. However, the Petitioner has stated that they did not receive any reply from the Respondents. Consequently, on 21.03.2002 they sent a letter informing the Deputy Commissioner about the same and requested that necessary orders be passed in their favour. Even, thereafter, the Petitioners did not receive any reply and on 01.04.2002, they were shocked to learn that the Municipality had issued a notice dated 20.03.2002 by which it was, inter alia, intimated that as per Order of the Deputy Commissioner the tank would be reauctioned on 30.03.2002. A copy of the said notice is Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. 7. What is most important to note about this notice is that there is virtually no publicity/circulation of the same. All that it says is that it will be put on the notice board. The Petitioner has stated that Annexure-5 was issued in a very clandestine manner only to accommodate the Respondent No.4 and as a matter of fact, the notice was not even pasted on the office notice board. Consequently, the Petitioner was deprived to be even aware of the contents of the notice as contained at Annexure-5 but, on 01.04.2002, when it came to learn about the same, the reauction, had already taken place on 30.03.2002. Thereafter, on 16.04.2002, the writ petitioner filed the instant writ application and on 30.04.2002, this Court while issuing notice upon the Respondent No.4, directed that while the Writ Petition was pending before this Court, the Respondents shall not act pursuant to the second auction that may have been held on 30.03.2002. 8. Thereafter, on 16.04.2002, the writ petitioner filed the instant writ application and on 30.04.2002, this Court while issuing notice upon the Respondent No.4, directed that while the Writ Petition was pending before this Court, the Respondents shall not act pursuant to the second auction that may have been held on 30.03.2002. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4 from where it appears that even prior to 16.03.2002, i.e. the date of the first auction, the Secretary of the Commissioner had written a letter to the Additional Collector, Palamau to send a report in relation to the auction taken for extension of the period of recommending the lease of the Municipal Tank in favour of the Respondent No.2. Thereafter, the Special Executive Officer submitted a report on 21.01.2002 stating that on account of beautification of the Tank in question and construction of a "Dhobi Ghat", the water had flown away causing 1055 to the Respondent no. 4 and therefore, he recommended extension of one year at 10% enhanced amount. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Palamau Division allowed the extension of the lease for one year i.e. 2002-2003 on 10% enhanced amount vide letter dated 28.02.2002. However, to avoid complication, it has been stated that a public notice (Annexure-1 to the Writ Application) was circulated informing all concerned that there would be a Public Auction on 16.03.2002 for the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. 9. From what has been stated above and from what appears from the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent no.4 is that right from the beginning, the Respondent Authorities appear to have made recommendations that the Tank should be resettled by way of extension by one year at 10% enhanced amount in favour of the Respondent No.4. 10. Such a move of settling Sairats/Tank is impermissible and therefore, perhaps realizing their mistake, the Respondent authorities correctly issued Annexure1 informing the public and all concerned that there would be a Public Auction on 16.03.2002. Public Auction, as stated above, was held and the Petitioner being a Co-operative Society gave a matching offer but what happened thereafter and the manner in which the Tank was settled with the Respondent No.4, cannot be appreciated by this Court. Public Auction, as stated above, was held and the Petitioner being a Co-operative Society gave a matching offer but what happened thereafter and the manner in which the Tank was settled with the Respondent No.4, cannot be appreciated by this Court. It appears that the due process of Law was shelved and no sooner had the Petitioner participated in the Auction, that the Respondents hurriedly issued Annexure-5 and clandestinely reauctioned the Tank on 30.03.2002 and on the next day i.e. on 01.04.2002, executed an unregistered agreement. They did not even realize that whereas the auction was to settle the Tank for only one year (i.e. 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003), the agreement that was executed was made effective for a period of three years but immediately thereafter, they mentioned "beginning from 1st April, 2002 and ending 31st March, 2003". Their haste is so obvious in the agreement that they are not even sure as to whether it would be for the period of three years or it would be for the period of 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. However, from the Counter Affidavit of the Special Officer, Daltonganj Municipality, it s apparent that the settlement was made JY them in favour of the Respondent No.4 or a period of three years although in Annexure-1 it was to be w.e.f. 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. Paragraph-5 of the Counter Affidavit reads thus :- "That it is further stated that the file was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner through the Additional Collector and the Deputy Commissioner finally viewed that since auction amount is not at expected increase let there be fresh auction on 30.03.2002 in which the petitioner did not participate and amongst the four participants the Respondent No.4 came out with flying colours at Rs. 2,55,300/- each year for three years. (i) How could a settlement that was supposed to have made for a period of one year vide Annexure-1 was suddenly made for three years? (ii) How could the Respondents ignore the matching offer given by the Petitioner when such matching offer is permissible as per Government Circular itself? (iii) Why is it that after the matching offer was given by the Petitioner that all of a sudden a secret, clandestine notice was issued informing very secretly that the Deputy Commissioner had thought it fit to reauction the Tank on 30.03.2002? (iii) Why is it that after the matching offer was given by the Petitioner that all of a sudden a secret, clandestine notice was issued informing very secretly that the Deputy Commissioner had thought it fit to reauction the Tank on 30.03.2002? (iv) If the Deputy Commissioner thought it fit to reauction, why was his decision not published and given wide circulation : (v) Since the Petitioner had given a matching offer, why were no efforts taken at the level of the Deputy Commissioner or at the level of the Municipality to inform the Petitioner to participate in the reauction? (vi) Why is it that everything was done in such great haste? 11. The aforesaid questions, all lead to the inescapable conclusion that the process adopted by the Respondents in settling the tank with the Respondent No.4 was totally arbitrary, illegal and smacks of irregularity. Consequently, the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside. 12. At this stage, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 stated that pursuant to the execution of the agreement on 01.04.2002 he has put in fish fry (a swarm of young fishes just spawned) worth Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) on 03.04.2002. If this be correct, this Court under Article 226 cannot asses as to whether he has, in fact, spent the sum of Rs. 50,000/-or not. This Court, therefore, leaves this matter entirely to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to assess and decide as to how they would compensate the Respondent No. 4 for any loss that may have been suffered by him for their own follies. The matter, in so far as it relates to the Tank in question, is now remanded to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to proceed afresh in accordance with law by holding a reauction after giving wide publicity/circulation so that everyone is able to participate. The Respondents are directed to be careful and act in accordance with law. The entire process must be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. 13. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this. Writ petition is allowed.