JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J. - By this judgment, we propose to dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 13360 and 15408 of 2005. 2. The propositions of law as propounded in both these petitions are similar. There is a slight deviation qua facts with which we shall deal at the subsequent stage of the judgment. 3. The State of Punjab intended to auction quarries of minor minerals, such as gravel (Bajri) and boulder in Districts of Ropar and Patiala. An auction notice for the said purpose was issued on 11.4.2005, a copy of which is attached as Annexure P1 with C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005. However, on 10.5.2005, another notice was issued by which the general public was informed that the auction which was fixed for 25.5.2005 as per the contents of Annexure P1 would now be postponed and information regarding next date would be given subsequently. 4. On 11.8.2005, a publication was done in the newspapers mentioning the next date of auction as, 25.8.2005 for District Patiala and as 29.8.2005 for District Ropar. It was stipulated in this notice that 104 quarries of the minor minerals in District Ropar and 44 quarries in District Patiala would be put to auction. The names of the quarries and Hadbast numbers were also duly mentioned. 5. The petitioners have impugned the procedure adopted by the official respondents for auctioning the said quarries as being violative of the provisions of Rules 28 and 31 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules). Apart from this, the petitioners have also pleaded that the notice pursuant to which the auction is to take place did not specify the khasra numbers of the land from which excavation for extraction of the minor minerals was to be done. They have averred that in the absence of khasra numbers, it was not possible to identify the lands and mentioning of only Hadbast numbers was not enough. The petitioners have also contended that they have been seriously prejudiced as they could not find out as to which of the lands are being set down to auction and, therefore, the judgment for making a bid qua these lands stood seriously clouded and hampered. 6. In their written statement, the official respondents have averred that the proposed auction was absolutely in accordance with the rules. 6. In their written statement, the official respondents have averred that the proposed auction was absolutely in accordance with the rules. They have pleaded that the publication was got done on 11.4.2005, but the auction had to be postponed and subsequently another notice was issued on 11.8.2005 by which it had been informed that the auction was set down for 25.8.2005 for District Patiala and for 29.8.2005 for District Ropar. The official respondents have averred that since the proceedings were continuing, therefore, it could not be said that the original notice dated 11.4.2005 had elapsed. They have stated that in any case, the petitioner were well aware of the auction proceedings and the dates of auction. In so far as the averment of the petitioners regarding non-specifying of the khasra numbers is concerned, the official respondents have pleaded that the record where khasra numbers are recorded is voluminous one, and, therefore, it was not possible to publish the entire khasra numbers. They have averred that in the published notice itself, it was made clear that the persons, who intended to participate in the auction were free to inspect the record pertaining to the details of land on any working day. The official respondents have also pleaded that there was absolutely no infirmity in their action relating to the auction proceedings. 7. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions in details, it would be appropriate to mention here that the auction qua District Ropar has not taken place. It was slated for 29.8.2005, but before the auction could be conducted, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005 wherein auction qua both the districts was stayed. However, before this order could be communicated, the auction qua District Patiala had already taken place and one Bahadur Singh and Sahibjit Singh Sandhu had made a successful bid for the quarries in District Patiala. 8. Since the rights of a third party, i.e., Bahadur Singh and Sahibjit Singh Sandhu came into existence, they filed C.M. Nos. 15381 of 2005 and 7380 of 2006 for being impleaded as respondents in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005. Their prayer was allowed and now, they are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in this writ petition. 9. 8. Since the rights of a third party, i.e., Bahadur Singh and Sahibjit Singh Sandhu came into existence, they filed C.M. Nos. 15381 of 2005 and 7380 of 2006 for being impleaded as respondents in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005. Their prayer was allowed and now, they are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in this writ petition. 9. In the meantime, the unsuccessful bidders qua the auction of District Patiala also filed a separate writ petition being No. 15408 of 2005 in which, apart from the issues raised by the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005, they also challenged the auction proceedings qua District Patiala, which had been concluded; on the ground that the auction was a sham auction, and that they had been prevented from participating in it, and that they were even now willing to pay about Rs. 60 lacs more than what Sarv Shri Bahadur Singh and SahibJit Singh Sandhu had paid. 10. We shall now examine the issues before us in both these writ petitions. 11. There is no dispute that a publication of the notice had been done on 11.4.2005 by which the date of auction was set down for 20.5.2005. That auction could not be held on the date fixed and consequently, the same was postponed. The fact of the postponement was also notified and then another notice was issued on 11.8.2005 by which it was notified that the auction for District Patiala would be held on 25.8.2005 and for District Ropar on 29.8.2005. The postponement, in fact, became necessary because some of the interested persons had filed writ petitions challenging the auction notice and all those writ petitions were actually disposed of on 20.5.2005 by a Division Bench of this Court. A perusal of the record reveals that the main order dated 20.5.2005 was passed in C.W.P. No. 6883 of 2005 and the auction proceedings in so far as the same pertained to Districts Ropar and Patiala were upheld. The relevant operative part of the order dated 20.5.2005 reads as under : "There is no impediment to conduct the auction in the districts of Ropar and Patiala as the quarrying sites of these districts have already been demarcated. Liberty is granted to the respondents to conduct the auction in these two districts in the manner stated hereinabove immediately." 12. The relevant operative part of the order dated 20.5.2005 reads as under : "There is no impediment to conduct the auction in the districts of Ropar and Patiala as the quarrying sites of these districts have already been demarcated. Liberty is granted to the respondents to conduct the auction in these two districts in the manner stated hereinabove immediately." 12. The contention of the petitioners is that since original notification dated 11.4.2005, was not followed up, it stood elapsed and, therefore, there was a violation of Rule 30(2) of the Rules, which stipulates that at least 30 days notice should have been given before the date of auction. It has been urged that the notice pursuant to which auction had taken place was published on 11.8.2005 and the auction was fixed for 25.8.2005 and 29.8.2005 and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 30(2) have not been complied with. 13. To appreciate the stand of the petitioners in a correct perspective, we deem it appropriate to notice the relevant part of Rule 30(2) of the Rules. The same reads as under : "30. Period of contract. - (1) xx xx xx xx xx (2) The auction shall be notified - (i) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (ii) in the Punjab Government Gazette by publishing the auction notice at least 30 days before the date of auction and it shall mention the terms and conditions of the auction of the contract. A copy of the auction notice shall be sent to the local authority having jurisdiction over the area in question for giving wide publicity in the area; (iii) to (viii) xx xx xx xx xx xx." 14. The provision of the Rule is crystal clear and there is no ambiguity on this count, but in the instant case, the facts have to be seen in their totality. As observed above, a notice was issued on 11.4.2005, but since few writ petitions involving similar questions were filed and were pending, therefore, the official respondents had no option except to postpone the auction. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 20.5.2005 and a Division Bench of this Court categorically held that there was no impediment to conduct the auction for the quarries in the Districts of Patiala and Ropar as the sites in these districts have already been demarcated. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 20.5.2005 and a Division Bench of this Court categorically held that there was no impediment to conduct the auction for the quarries in the Districts of Patiala and Ropar as the sites in these districts have already been demarcated. It was thereafter that the official respondents issued notice dated 11.8.2005 by which the present auction was fixed for 25.8.2005 (for District Patiala) and for 29.8.2005 (for District Ropar). The intention of the rule reproduced above is that sufficient publicity and time should be given to the intending parties, who wish to participate in the auction to take the land for the purposes of extracting minor minerals. The only conceivable purpose can be that all persons desirous of participating in the auction get sufficient notice to assess the land and make a bid accordingly. 15. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the parties had been litigating and were closely following up the action of the official respondents in fixing the dates of auction. The matter has been a subject-matter of intense litigation between the groups, who were desirous of taking the land for extraction of the minor minerals. The notice was initially issued on 11.4.2005. As per this notice, the auction was to take place on 10.5.2005, giving clear notice of 30 days to the intending parties. Subsequently, the auction had to be postponed because of the pendency of the writ petitions which were decided on 20.5.2005. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 11.8.2005 intimating to the intending parties that the auction for the quarries of District Patiala will take place on 25.8.2005 and that for the quarries of District Ropar on 29.8.2005. This notice was, therefore, in continuation of the initial notice issued on 11.4.2005. There was, thus, substantial compliance of Rule 30 of the Rules as all the persons had sufficient notice of the proposed auction. 16. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that the intending parties did not have sufficient notice to participate in the auction scheduled for 25.8.2005 and 29.8.2005. Apart from this, it has been pointed out that the States attempts to auction the quarries had led to spate of litigation and as a result thereof, the official respondents could not auction the quarries. 17. Apart from this, it has been pointed out that the States attempts to auction the quarries had led to spate of litigation and as a result thereof, the official respondents could not auction the quarries. 17. Such tactics apparently not only would have resulted in a huge loss to the exchequer, but in all probabilities would have also encouraged illegal mining. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the notice which has been issued by the government on 11.8.2005 fixing the auction for 25.8.2005 (for Patiala District) and 29.8.2005 (for Ropar District). 18. The petitioners have contended that as per Section 2(f) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the area which was to be the subject-matter of auction had to be specifically clarified in the notice and since this was not done in the present case, the entire auction proceedings would be hit. A perusal of Annexure P1 i.e. original notice issued on 11.4.2005, clearly shows that the official respondents had mentioned that the record pertaining to khasra numbers can be seen in the office of General Manager, Industries Centre, Mohali and the office of General Manager, Industries Centre, Patiala. The note appended to Annexure P1 is extracted herein below for the purpose of reference : "Note : The Khasra numbers of the area of Khuds of district Ropar can be seen at the office of General Manager, Industries Centre, Mohali and the Khasra numbers of the area of Khuds of district Patiala can be seen at the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sirhind Road, Patiala on any working day." 19. In the light of the above reproduced note, the contention of the petitioner is, therefore, held to be totally unfounded. 20. Be that as it may, it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005 to make a challenge on this count as this Court has already adjudicated upon this issue while deciding C.W.P. No. 6883 of 2005 and other connected petitions. The petitioners have unnecessarily raked up this plea once again. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of the official respondents in the issuance of the notice, as also the non- specification of the land which is to be auctioned. 21. The petitioners have unnecessarily raked up this plea once again. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of the official respondents in the issuance of the notice, as also the non- specification of the land which is to be auctioned. 21. We have noticed in the earlier part of the judgment that the auction for District Ropar which was filed on 29.8.2005 did not take place as this Court had stayed the holding of auction vide order dated 25.8.2005. We are also constrained to observe that the petitioner, in this petition, has unnecessarily tried to project that the land from which quarrying is to be done, has not been demarcated. The record was available to the petitioner and he was not right in saying that the quarries had not been identified. Especially so, when this Court has already held that the land already stood demarcated to its satisfaction as well. Apart from this, the petitioner-M/s Ropar Nagar Royalty Company (Regd). was not an applicant for District Patiala, but in the garb of this petition, it had managed to get an order from this Court which affected the rights of the persons, who were participants in the auction qua District Patiala. We, therefore, feel that the conduct of the petitioner-M/s Roop Nagar Royalty Company (Regd.) is highly deplorable and contumacious. 22. Consequently, we do not deem it fit to interfere in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005 which is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. 23. As far as C.W.P. No. 15408 of 2005 is concerned, Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri H.R. Mittal, Advocate stated that he adopts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005. Apart from this, he submitted that the order restraining the holding of auction was passed on 25.8.2005 i.e., the date on which the auction for District Patiala was fixed and the moment the order was conveyed, most of the persons, who were intending to participate in the auction, left the venue. He argued that despite this fact, the official respondents went ahead with the auction of the quarries and this had reduced the entire exercise to a farce. He submitted that the petitioners were ready to pay Rs. 3.30 Crores as against the bid of Rs. 2.77 Crores of respondent No. 4 in whose favour the auction has been released. He argued that despite this fact, the official respondents went ahead with the auction of the quarries and this had reduced the entire exercise to a farce. He submitted that the petitioners were ready to pay Rs. 3.30 Crores as against the bid of Rs. 2.77 Crores of respondent No. 4 in whose favour the auction has been released. He also drew our attention to the averments made by respondent No. 4 in C.M. No. 7380 of 2006, filed in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005 in which he has admitted obliquely that the business prospects of the minor minerals have increased and even he is prepared to pay Rs. 65 lacs more for the auction. In view of this, he argued that the entire auction be got conducted again as this would result in a substantial increase in the revenue to the exchequer. 24. Shri D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 contended that the entire proceedings were motivated as initially the material facts were concealed from this Court which led to the passing of the order by which the auction was stayed. In any case, even before the stay order could be conveyed, the auction proceedings had been completed. He submitted that the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 15408 of 2005 were the participants in the auction, but did not make any bid at all and, therefore, they are now precluded from making any challenge to the auction. 25. Shri C.M. Munjal, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab produced the original record before us in order to show that the petitioners were participants in the auction proceedings held on 25.8.2005 and their names appear at Sr. No. 38 and 49. He submitted that both these petitioners had deposited Rs. 10,000/- each as was the requirement to participate in the auction and their attendance was duly marked in the register. He further urged that as many as 64 participants were there and the attendance of each one of them was marked. 26. We have perused the original record and find that the statement made by Shri Munjal is correct. 27. We are convinced after perusing the record that the petitioners were participants in the auction proceedings and did not make any bid. 26. We have perused the original record and find that the statement made by Shri Munjal is correct. 27. We are convinced after perusing the record that the petitioners were participants in the auction proceedings and did not make any bid. Having fought and lost or rather having not fought at all, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the auction proceedings, once they were present at the time of auction and chose not to make any bid. We are also satisfied that the auction was conducted in a proper manner having attracted as many as 64 participants. It was up to the participants to decide whether or not to make any bid in the auction. The perusal of the record also shows that there had been some cross bidding and the closest bid was of Rs. 2.76 Crore. Respondent No. 4 bid which was to the tune of Rs. 2.77 Crores was thereafter accepted. No infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners except for the bald averment that there was no fair auction. 28. Shri Rajiv Atma Ram submitted that the petitioners are ready to make a bid of Rs. 3.30 Crores which is a substantial increase of revenue which would benefit the exchequer. No doubt, the submission seems to be very tempting, but we cannot wash away the effect of a fair auction where the petitioners themselves had an opportunity to make this bid. The petitioners were present and were participants in the proceedings. They have not been able to show as to what prevented them from making a bid. Such proposals are often made to frustrate the auction proceedings. We are, therefore, not inclined to enter into this controversy and would prefer to accept the auction proceedings as they exist. 29. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the auction which has been held qua the quarries of District Patiala on 25.8.2005 and uphold the bid in favour of respondent No. 4. 30. For the reasons recorded above, C.W.P. No. 15408 of 2005 is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 31. We have already given reasons for dismissing C.W.P. No. 13360 of 2005 in the foregoing paragraphs which has been dismissed with Rs. 20,000/- as costs. Petitions dismissed.