Judgment : This writ petition is directed against the proceedings dated 18. 2008 on the file of the fourth respondent whereby confirmed sale of condemned Rafmat Wheel Lathe in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on administrative grounds. 2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under: Petitioner’s version The second respondent issued a notification for auction of various goods including condemned Rafmat Wheel Lathe in ‘as is where is’ condition, fixing the auction on 12. 1999. In the said notification condemned Rafmat Wheel Lathe was shown as item No. 62 and pursuant to the said notification issued in November, 1999, the petitioner took part in the auction which was conducted by Varma & Company auctioneers on behalf of Integral Coach Factory. The auction was conducted on 12. 1999 and the bid given by the petitioner was found to be the highest and as such, the same was accepted by the respondents and accordingly, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 12. 1999 and the balance amount was paid on 1. 2000. As per the practice prevalent in the Railways, they would give a particular date for removal of the scrap or other materials sold in public auction and the same was called “Point Booking Date” and the successful tenderer has to take delivery of the materials on the said date. Since the respondents were not able to uproot the machine they failed to hand over the Rafmat Wheel Lathe to the petitioner. 3. Since the materials were not delivered to the petitioner, he submitted a representation on 21. 2000 requesting the respondents to intimate the date on which he could take delivery of the materials. Since no reply was received from the respondents, the petitioner submitted another representation on 22. 2000, which was followed by a notice dated 6. 2000. Subsequently, the petitioner received a copy of the communication dated 17. 2000 addressed to the authorities by the Assistant Controller of Stores to undertake the job of uprooting of the machine. Later, on 27. 2000, the petitioner received a letter from the Deputy Controller of Stores stating that he would be permitted to remove the goods on or before 8. 2000. 2000 addressed to the authorities by the Assistant Controller of Stores to undertake the job of uprooting of the machine. Later, on 27. 2000, the petitioner received a letter from the Deputy Controller of Stores stating that he would be permitted to remove the goods on or before 8. 2000. Accordingly, when the petitioner approached the respondents for removal of the goods, he was asked to come with necessary transport and men for lifting the materials, and the petitioner arranged for transport as well as labourers and appeared before the respondents on 30.7.2000, but to his surprise, it was noticed that the machine was not uprooted. .4. Immediately, the petitioner had sent a letter to the respondents on 8. 2000 stating that though he was granted permission to remove the goods on 30.7.2000, the respondents have not chosen to uproot the machine and therefore it caused him considerable financial loss. Subsequently, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 18. 2000 cancelling the auction on administrative grounds with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Railway Office for return of the amount paid by him. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. .Defence .5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Chief Materials Manager on behalf of the respondents, they have admitted the auction held on 12. 1999 and the acceptance of the bid submitted by the petitioner in respect of item No. 62 as the same was the highest offer. The entire payment made by the petitioner was also admitted. It was the contention of the respondents that the machine was not given delivery as it was not possible to uproot the machine easily. However, no demurrage charges were levied on the petitioner for not taking delivery since the machine was not uprooted. The third respondent as per his communication dated 23. 2000 expressed his inability to uproot the machine since the weight of the machine was about 15 MT. Finally orders were issued whereby the Railways themselves under took the job of uprooting the machinery. .6. Subsequently, there was a direction from the Vigilance Cell to cancel the auction and accordingly the bid submitted by the petitioner and confirmed later was cancelled. According to the respondents, Sl. Nos. Finally orders were issued whereby the Railways themselves under took the job of uprooting the machinery. .6. Subsequently, there was a direction from the Vigilance Cell to cancel the auction and accordingly the bid submitted by the petitioner and confirmed later was cancelled. According to the respondents, Sl. Nos. 13(2) and 13(4) of the tender conditions of sale relates to auction sale of materials and as per the conditions, the Railway Administration has got the right to cancel the auction and to withhold the delivery of the machineries either in part or it full without assigning any reason and as such, they were justified in their action in canceling the auction. .Submissions 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tender was confirmed in the name of the petitioner as the amount offered by him was the highest and the respondents were taking time to hand over the materials and the same was delayed on account of the failure of the respondents to uproot the machinery and finally they have cancelled the very auction on the ground of administrative reasons, without any basis for such cancellation. It was the further contention of the learned counsel that in the counter for the first time they have projected the reason pertaining to the objection raised by the vigilance Wing of the Railways and such reasons were not found in the impugned order and even if there were some objections from the Vigilance Cell, that cannot be a reason to cancel the auction and that too after conformation. .8. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that an attempt was made to include a Motor also while giving delivery of the materials to the petitioner and that was detected by the Vigilance and accordingly the respondents were directed by the Vigilance Department to cancel the auction. It was the further contention of the learned senior counsel that the respondents were justified in canceling the auction on the basis of the direction given by the Vigilance Wing of the Railways. Learned senior counsel also contended that in case fraud has been played in the matter after entering into the contractual transaction, that is a valid reason for cancellation of the contract. For the purpose of his submission that there were materials taken into consideration by the respondents to cancel the auction. Learned senior counsel also contended that in case fraud has been played in the matter after entering into the contractual transaction, that is a valid reason for cancellation of the contract. For the purpose of his submission that there were materials taken into consideration by the respondents to cancel the auction. Learned senior counsel placed the relevant file and justified the action taken by the respondents. .Analysis 9. There was no dispute with regard to the publicity given by the respondents for the proposed auction of materials lying in the Integral Coach Factory. The auction notification was published on 211. 1999 and 30.11.1999 and the auction was also conducted by one of the leading and reputed auctioneers by name Varma and Company on behalf of the Integral Coach Factory. In the auction held on 12. 1999, the petitioner submitted his bid for item No. 62 and the said offer was found to be the highest and accordingly the same was accepted by the Railways. Since the bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted, he had paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-immediately after the auction and the balance amount was also paid on 1. 2000. Since the machine was imbedded to earth and the same was not uprooted, the respondents were not in a position to hand over the materials to the petitioner and as such, they have been taking time for such delivery. 10. In the normal course, the tenderer has to pay demurrage to the Railways, in case the materials have not been taken delivery within the time granted by the Railways. In the present case, since the delay was only on account of the inability of the railways to deliver the materials, the Railways have not collected demurrage charges from the petitioner. 11. The proceedings of the Controller of Stores dated 17. 2000 shows that the Railways have requested the Engineering Wing to uproot the machinery for the purpose of giving deli very to the petitioner. As per the proceedings dated 27. 2000, the petitioner was given free extension of time for taking delivery of the materials. As per the communication dated 8. 2000, the third respondent has informed the petitioner that the delivery of the machine was held up due to some administrative reason till further notice.. Ultimately, as per the impugned order dated 18. As per the proceedings dated 27. 2000, the petitioner was given free extension of time for taking delivery of the materials. As per the communication dated 8. 2000, the third respondent has informed the petitioner that the delivery of the machine was held up due to some administrative reason till further notice.. Ultimately, as per the impugned order dated 18. 2000 confirmation of sale was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to receive the amount paid by him from the office of the Railways. .12. The respondents in their counter affidavit clearly admitted the confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner as well as the delay in delivery of the material, as the same was not uprooted. It was only long after the confirmation that the respondents have cancelled the tender on the ground of administrative reasons. For the first time in the counter affidavit the respondents have come up with the case that the cancellation was only on account of the direction given by the Vigilance Wing. 13. I have perused the file produced by the learned senior counsel for the respondents. As per the communication sent by the Chief Vigilance Officer dated 8. 2000, the respondents were directed to defer the delivery of the material on account of receipt of some information by the Vigilance. According to the learned senior counsel, the main reason for cancellation of the tender was on account of the attempt to deliver a spare motor also along with the machinery. Ultimately, as per the letter dated 8. 2000, the Vigilance have recommended cancellation of the auction and delivery of the said machine to the petitioner and advised to go for fresh auction. On the basis of the said instruction, the respondents have decided to cancel the sale and issued the impugned order. 14. There was no indication either in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit as well as in the file to the effect that the petitioner was responsible for the allegations leveled against the officials of the Railways for including the motor in the materials to be delivered to the petitioner. There was no reference abo9ut the petitioner in any of the proceedings in the file. It was only on account of the allegations stated to have been received by the vigilance that they have directed the respondents to cancel the auction. There was no reference abo9ut the petitioner in any of the proceedings in the file. It was only on account of the allegations stated to have been received by the vigilance that they have directed the respondents to cancel the auction. It was not the case of the respondents that the price offered by the petitioner was low or there was fraud in the auction. Similarly, it was not the case of the vigilance or the respondents that wide publicity was not given before auctioning the materials. It was only on the basis of the notification published by the respondents that the petitioner took part in the auction and the bid submitted by him was found to be the highest and as the respondents were satisfied about the price, the bid was accepted and he was made to pay the entire amount. The correspondence exchanged between the petitioner and the respondents clearly shows that the respondents have been taking time only for the purpose of uprooting the machinery and to hand over the same to the petitioner. It was only on account of the delay caused by the respondents that they have not collected the demurrage charges from the petitioner. 16. The only ground as found in the file against the sale, was in respect of inclusion of one motor in the list of materials to be supplied to the petitioner. In case the motor was not the subject matter of auction, the respondents could have retained the motor. But the respondents were obliged to deliver the materials as contained in Sl. No. 62 of the auction notification to the petitioner on the basis of the bid submitted by him, which was also found to be acceptable to the respondents. In pursuance of the notification, the petitioner has given an offer and that offer has been accepted by the respondents. Therefore, there was a concluded contract between the parties capable of enforcement. In pursuance of the said contract, the petitioner has performed his part and on their part the respondents have to deliver the materials to the petitioner. The fact that the Vigilance Department of the Railways received some complaints, cannot be a reason to avoid the liability arising out of the contract. Even in the file, there was nothing to indicate as to who made the complaint and the nature of averments in the said complaint. The fact that the Vigilance Department of the Railways received some complaints, cannot be a reason to avoid the liability arising out of the contract. Even in the file, there was nothing to indicate as to who made the complaint and the nature of averments in the said complaint. However, the proceedings of the Vigilance as found in the file shows that the main reason for cancellation was only on the ground that an additional item of spare main motor of 50 KB capacity has been included in the lot during the process of dismantling the machine to be delivered to the petitioner. However, no act of fraud has been alleged against the petitioner as well as the officers who have auctioned the machinery. 17. Therefore, it was too late for the respondents to come up with the contention that they re entitled to cancel the auction by exercising their right as vested in them as per Clause 13(2) of the tender conditions. The provision giving authority to the controller of stores to refuse or to accept the bid could be resorted to only before acceptance of the bid. The said provision clearly shows that the controller of stores was empowered to withdraw any lot or items that had been advertised for sale without assigning any reason or to refuse to accept any bid, which it may consider unsatisfactory. However in the present case, the bid submitted by the petitioner has already been accepted and he was directed to pay the entire amount and accordingly the payment was also made. Subsequently, the respondents have taken sufficient time for the purpose of delivery of the materials as the same was not uprooted. It was long after the confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner that the respondents have resorted to the cancellation of sale on the ground that there was a direction from the vigilance to cancel the auction. The auction file produced by the respondents does not show any material relating to fraud in the matter of auction and as such the so called administrative reason for cancellation of the sale cannot be justified in the factual situation. Scope of Judicial Review 18. The auction file produced by the respondents does not show any material relating to fraud in the matter of auction and as such the so called administrative reason for cancellation of the sale cannot be justified in the factual situation. Scope of Judicial Review 18. The extent of judicial review in contractual matters was considered by the Apex Court in M.D..H.S.I.B.C. v. Hari Om Enterprises (2008) 6 MLJ 691 : (2008) 9 SCALE 241 , wherein it was observed thus at p. 701 of MLJ: “37. It may be true that ordinarily in a matter of enforcement of a contract qua contract, a writ Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, it is also trite that where the action of a State is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being wholly unfair and unreasonable, the writ Court would not hesitate to grant relief in favour of a person, where both law and equity demands that such relief should be granted. 19. In a recent judgment the Apex Court in Valii Khimji & Company v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Ltd. and Others (2009) 1 MLJ 315 : (2008) 11 Scale 287 held that once the sale is confirmed by the authority, certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser, and these tights cannot be extinguished except in exceptional cases such as fraud and held thus at p. 319 of MLJ: “31. If it is held that every confirmed sale can be set aside the result should be that no auction sale will ever be complete because always somebody can come after the auction or its confirmation offering a higher amount. 32. It could have been a different matter if the auction had been held without adequate publicity in well-known newspapers having wide circulation, but where the auction sale was done after wide publicity, then setting aside the sale after its confirmation will create huge problems. When an auction sale is advertised in well-known newspapers having wide circulation, all eligible persons can come and bid for the same, and they will be themselves be to blame if they do not come forward to bid at the time of the auction. They cannot ordinarily later on be allowed after the bidding (or confirmation) is over to offer a higher price. 33. They cannot ordinarily later on be allowed after the bidding (or confirmation) is over to offer a higher price. 33. Of course, the situation may be different if an auction sale is finalized say for Rs. 10 crores, and subsequently somebody turns up offering Rs. 10 crores. In this situation it is possible to infer that there was some fraud because if somebody subsequently offers Rs. (sic) 10 crores, then an inference can be drawn that an attempt had been made to acquire that property/asset at a grossly inadequate price. This situation itself may indicate fraud or some collusion. However, if the price offered after the auction is over which is only a little over the auction price, that cannot by itself suggest that any fraud has been done. 34. In the present case we are satisfied that there is no fraud in the auction sale. It may be mentioned that auctions are of two types (1) where the auction is not subject to subsequent confirmation and (2) where the auction is subject to subsequent confirmation by some authority after the auction is held. 35. In the first case mentioned above, i.e. where the auction is not subject to confirmation by any authority, the auction is complete on the fall of the hammer, and certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser. However, where the auction is subject to subsequent confirmation by some authority (under a statute or terms of the auction) the auction is not complete and no rights accrue-until the sale is confirmed by the said authority. Once, however, the sale is confirmed by that authority, certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser, and these rights cannot be extinguished except in exceptional cases such as fraud.” Absence of fraud 20. In the present case, there were no exceptional circumstances, to cancel the auction. There was no allegation of fraud in the conduct of the auction. Similarly, there was no dispute with regr5d to the wide publicity given before auctioning the materials. In fact, the respondents have detailed about the notifications issued by them with respect to the auction in the counter affidavit and the conduct of auction by their auctioneers. The bid offered by the petitioner was found to be the highest one and the same was accepted by the railways which made the petitioner to pay the entire amount. In fact, the respondents have detailed about the notifications issued by them with respect to the auction in the counter affidavit and the conduct of auction by their auctioneers. The bid offered by the petitioner was found to be the highest one and the same was accepted by the railways which made the petitioner to pay the entire amount. The railways have also opted for more time for delivery of the property under the pretext of uprooting the same. Therefore, there was no justifiable reason to cancel the auction long after the confirmation of the bid. Conclusion 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the respondents were not justified in canceling the auction on administrative reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18. 2000 is quashed. The confirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner stands upheld No costs.