Judgment 1. Heard Sri Mukteshwar Singh, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Special P.P., Mines for the State, Sri Navniti Prasad Singh for the private respondent no. 5 and Sri N.K. Agrawal for the intervenor- respondent. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ application asserting that Advertisement dated 27/28.11.2004, Annexure-4 was issued in the Prabhat Khabar/ Hindustan Times, Patna fixing settlement of the Balughats on 30.11.2004 at. 11 A.M. on the ground that the time fixed for auction was wholly arbitrary as only 2/3 days notice was given to the petitioners to prepare and participate in the said settlement/auction. 3. Counsel for the State as also private respondent has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition on the ground that petitioners were aware of the date of auction even before publication of the Advertisement dated 27/28.11.2004 as would appear from his letter dated 25.11.2004, 27.11.2004 itself whereunder they had requested the authorities of the Mines Department as also the District Mining Officer, Patna for proper security arrangement on the date of auction. In this connection, they referred to the letter of the petitioners dated 25.11.2004 and 27.11.2004, Annexures-2 and 3 to the supplementary affidavit. Intervenor respondent, however, has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner Society is not authorised to file the present writ application as there was no resolution of the governing body of the Society to file any such writ petition, rather the Governing body has resolved to withdraw the writ petition itself and on this ground itself the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has contested the prayer of the intervenor-respondent suggesting that forgery has been committed and no such resolution was ever passed by the Members of the Society to withdraw this writ petition and he further asserts with reference to the resolution dated 5.11.2004, Annexure-7 that the Society did authorise the petitioners to fiie the present writ petition questioning the settlement of the Balughats pursuant to the Advertisement dated 27/28.11.2004, Annexure-4. In view of the contrary stands taken by the petitioners and the intervenor-respondents, it becomes a disputed questions of fact as to whether the Governing body of the Society had authorised the petitioners to file the present writ application in view of resolution dated 5.11.2004, Annexure-7, which is not possible to be adjudicated in this case and is, accordingly, not being adjudicated. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and appreciating the fact that only 2/3 days time was allowed for preparing a prospective bidder to participate in the auction, this Court under order dated 21.2.2005 directed petitioner no. 2 to file an affidavit making his stand clear as to whether he was agreeable to deposit 10% over and above the bid amount on the basis of which settlement has been made in favour of private respondent no. 5 on 30.11.2004, 8/ 10.12.2004 in regard to other Balughats. 6. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 21.2.2005, petitioner no. 2 has filed an affidavit on 21.2.2005 itself wherefrom it appears that he is agreeable to deposit the bid amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the hearing of this case again made his stand clear that the bid amount in respect to all Balughats, which were settled with private respondent no. 5, shall be deposited over and above 10% within two weeks from 21.2.2005. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that 2/3 days notice for conducting the auction of the Baiughats was not sufficient and was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as such, the Advertisement dated 27/ 28.11.2004 and the auction held on 30.11.2004 and the subsequent auctions settling the Baiughats in favour of private respondent no. 5 is quashed with direction to the petitioner to deposit the bid amount plus 10% of all the Baiughats settled with private respondent no. 5 within two weeks from 21.2.2005. 5 is quashed with direction to the petitioner to deposit the bid amount plus 10% of all the Baiughats settled with private respondent no. 5 within two weeks from 21.2.2005. In the event aforesaid deposit is made, State respondents more particularly the District Magistrates of Patna, Bhojpur and Saran and District Mining Officers and Assistant Mining Officers of Patna, Bhojpur and Saran are directed to ensure publication of another notice in Newspaper(s) within two weeks of the deposit made by the petitioners for settlement of Baiughats fixing minimum two weeks time for holding auction in which petitioner, private respondent and others who desire to participate in the auction, shall be entitled to participate in the said auction. Until settlement is made in compliance of this order, private respondent no. 5 shall continue with his settlement and once the settlement is made in compliance of this order, the new bidder shall be allowed necessary deduction for the period respondent no. 5 has worked the Baiughats. 8. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. No cost.