V. S. SIRPURKAR. C. J. ( 1 ) WE have heard Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. K. P. Upadhayaya, learned counsel for the State. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein challenges the citation and recovery certificate issued against him for recovering an amount of Rs. 1,10,480/ -. Following facts will clarify the controversy involved : a notification was issued for holding auction regarding forest crops including 248 mango trees, 25 Naspati trees, 12 guava trees and 13 Leechi trees of Bahadrabad baghin survey No. 1 and 2 of lot number 61 for the year 1993-94. The petitioner's case is that auction for that purpose was held on 15-3-1994 wherein, he was the highest bidder for the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/ -. According to the petitioner, the condition of the auction required the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- alongwith the prescribed security amount and Income Tax payable immediately on the closing of the bid, that is on the same day when the bid was finalized and the balance amount was to be deposited within a period of one month therefrom. The condition No. 2 as pointed out before us and not contested by the other side in Hindi reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . Ed.) ( 3 ) THE petitioner immediately after the bid was finalised made payment of the sum of Rs. 13,900/- on the same day in compliance of the above condition No. 2. However, to his dismay, when the petitioner went for taking the crop, he found some other contractor, who was claiming that he was one in whose favour the auction was struck. According to the petitioner, the calculation of Rs. 13,900/- was also made by the Government officer, who held the auction and it was on his direction that he had paid Rs. 13,900/- vide receipt No, 80 of Book No. 842. The petitioner has also filed the said receipt before us. The petitioner then contends that after he came to know about the third party interest being created in respect of the lot, he inquired and came to know that re-auction was held for the same lot on 21-3-1994 and the highest bid was for Rs. The petitioner has also filed the said receipt before us. The petitioner then contends that after he came to know about the third party interest being created in respect of the lot, he inquired and came to know that re-auction was held for the same lot on 21-3-1994 and the highest bid was for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of one Sudesh Kumar Chauhan and thereafter the said bid was cancelled and again third auction was held on 23-3-1994, where the same Sudesh Kumar offered bid for Rs. 35,000/-, which was accepted. It was pointed out by the petitioner that even that amount of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited in four different receipts of 18-4-1994. Therefore, the petitioner questions all this and suggests that if that facility was given to other bidder, why was he refused that facility. The petitioner has filed those four receipts dated 18-4-1994 before us regarding the same auction. The petitioner then points out that all this was completely lost sight of and there was no question of the petitioner being made liable for the amount, which fell short of the highest bid offered by him i. e. Rs. 1,15,000/ -. The petitioner, therefore, suggests that there was some unholy nexus between the Government officer and the person in whose favour the auctions were held on 21-3-1994 and 23-3-1994. The petitioner further submits that there was no question of holding any auction again, particularly when he had made payment of the amount on 15-3-1994 as per the condition no. 2 of the action dated 15-3-1994. He, therefore, challenges the recovery of difference between the highest bid given by him and the accepted bid on 23-3-1994, which is treated as loss to the exchequer. ( 4 ) AS against this, the Government side has come up with a strange story. It is pointed out before us that after the auction was finalized on 15-3-1994, though the petitioner has put in his signatures on the sheet accepting highest bid of Rs. 1,15,000/-, he, however, for the reasons best known to him, ran away from the spot without making any payment. The said sheet is also before us alongwith counter affidavit. In the said sheet, there is nothing suggesting any reason for petitioner's fleeing from the spot without making payment. 1,15,000/-, he, however, for the reasons best known to him, ran away from the spot without making any payment. The said sheet is also before us alongwith counter affidavit. In the said sheet, there is nothing suggesting any reason for petitioner's fleeing from the spot without making payment. An F. I. R. was lodged for the offence punishable under section 185, I. P. C. on the next day of auction i. e. on 16-3-1993. Till today, the said report has not been brought before us. Be that as it may, the Government then proceeds on the lines that since the petitioner has decamped from the spot, the D. F. O. , who held the auction, has rightly in accordance with Sale Rule 11 of sale Rules 1993-94 cancelled the auction in exercise of his power under the rules (We do not see any cancellation order till today ). It is then suggested that the petitioner has neither approached for clarification of the matter. However, the petitioner then made payment of Rs. 13,900/- on 31-3-1994 vide same receipt no. 80. The Government, therefore, takes stand that it was the petitioner, who was defaulter, having failed to make payment on 15-3-1994 immediately after the bid was accepted. The petitioner decamped without making payment of a farthing, therefore, the government was justified in recovering the impugned amount from the petitioner because he caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,10,480/- to the Government. ( 5 ) IN spite of our best efforts, we have not been able to appreciate this stand of the government in this matter. What immediately strikes us is the receipt presented by the Government alongwith the counter affidavit from book No. 842 receipt No. 80 which suggests that it is in favour of Vinod Kumar sharma, the petitioner, and it indicates payment of Rs. 13,900/- for the auction No. 61/ 93-94. The date appears to be 31-3-1994 of issuance of receipt. In the middle portion in the middle of line No. 3, date 15-3-1994 also appears. The Government tries to justify its stand by saying that the petitioner fled the auction site immediately after the auction without making payment of Rs. 43,125/ -. Now, we fail to understand as to how the government has arrived at that figure of Rs. 43,125/- because till today the Government has not given any calculation as per the auction rules. The Government tries to justify its stand by saying that the petitioner fled the auction site immediately after the auction without making payment of Rs. 43,125/ -. Now, we fail to understand as to how the government has arrived at that figure of Rs. 43,125/- because till today the Government has not given any calculation as per the auction rules. On the other hand, we find that the respondents have filed a Xerox copy of the document containing the record of bids put by the bidder. It also contains the signatures of the officer holding auction as also the signature of the petitioner as he was highest bidder. On side of the document there appears to be following figures : rs. 11,500/- towards Sales price, rs. 1,012/- towards Sales Tax rs. 1,725/- towards Income Tax rs. 207/- towards surcharge rs. 143/- towards Stamp duty. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, these were figures calculated for enabling the petitioners to make the payment immediately after the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted. However, learned counsel points out that the figure of Rs. 11,500/- was also wrong as, as per auction rules when the lot was of beyond rs. 10,000/-, the only amount towards the sales price to be deposited was Rs. 10,000/ -. Thus calculated, according to learned counsel, the total figure comes to Rs. 13087/ -. The learned Senior Counsel further points that on that very day i. e. on 15-3-1994, the petitioner had paid Rs. 13,900/-, for which receipt was passed. The claim of the respondents that on 15-3-1994 after the auction was concluded, the petitioner should have paid Rs. 43,125/- is clearly baseless and it seems the claim of the petitioner that he had paid on the very same day, an amount of rs. 13,900/-, appears to be correct. ( 6 ) THE respondents claim that the petitloner did make payment of Rs. 13,900/-only on 31-3-1994. We do not see as to how the petitioner could have been allowed to have made the payment of that amount on 31-3-1994 because it is also the case of the government that on the petitioner's failure to make the payment on 15-3-1994, further auctions for the same lot were held on 21-3-1994 and 23-3-1994. If this is true, then there is no question of petitioner's making any payment on 31-3-1994 or respondents' accepting the same. If this is true, then there is no question of petitioner's making any payment on 31-3-1994 or respondents' accepting the same. We do not see any reason also on the record given by the Divisional Forest Officer, to hold a fresh auction or to cancel the petitioner's bid, which was already accepted on 15-3-1994. Thus, there is nothing produced before us to suggest that (1) the petitioner fled immediately after the auction was complete; (2) that he did not make payment on 15-3-1994; (3)that he made that payment on 31-3-1994; (4) and that there was any justification for holding auction again on 21 -3-1994 and 23-3-1994 or atleast any order to that effect was passed by the officer holding the auction. ( 7 ) SIMILAR is the state of affairs regarding the alleged F. I. R. filed by the respondents. We do not understand as to how the first information report was filed on the next day and not on the same day. All this convinces us that the stand of the respondents on the whole affair is not correct. When we see the receipt, which was presented by the petitioner in support of the payment, we find that the date 15-5-1994 is mentioned in the third line and there is no mention of the date 31-3-1994 on that receipt. That space is blank. However, in the alleged Xerox copy of the same receipt, which is filed by the respondent alongwith the counter, we curiously find the date 31-3-1994. We have already explained earlier that there could not have been any payment by the petitioner on 31-3-1994 nor could the respondents accept such payment, particularly when the case of the Government is that it had auctioned the same lot on 21 -3-1994 in favour of some other person. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the Xerox copy of the receipt, which is filed alongwith the counter affidavit, is not the copy of the genuine receipt filed by the petitioner. ( 8 ) THERE is one other reason and it puts us on the guard. It is to be seen that the lot which was auctioned on 15-3-1994 was sold for Rs. 115000/ -. However, the same lot was sold for Rs. 35,000/- in favour of some other person barely within eight days thereafter. Certainly, this is not a happy situation. It is to be seen that the lot which was auctioned on 15-3-1994 was sold for Rs. 115000/ -. However, the same lot was sold for Rs. 35,000/- in favour of some other person barely within eight days thereafter. Certainly, this is not a happy situation. ( 9 ) IT is, therefore, clear that there was no reason for the concerned authorities to hold auction again after having accepted the bid of the petitioner as also the amount of rs. 13,900/ -. Consequently, there would be no justification for recovering Rs. 1,10,480/-, which recovery has been ordered by the order dated 30-3-1994 bearing in the communication made by the Divisional Director, social Forestry Division, Bilkeshwar, haridwar. In our opinion, that order is wholly incorrect and does not amount to a proper order. ( 10 ) THE petition, therefore, must succeed. The petitioner will be entitled to have back his Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), which he has deposited as precondition of the bid. He will also be entitled to get Rs. 13,900/- (Thirteen Thousand Nine hundred only), which he has paid on 15-3-1994. This amount shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from today with interest @ 6% per annum. We inflict a cost of Rs. 3000/- on the Government. The Government is also well advised to hold an inquiry and examine as to who was responsible for all these irregularities, which we have indicated in the matter of holding auction. The impugned recovery citation Dt. 30-3-94 is quashed. The petition is disposed of on these lines. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .