ORDER Heard 2. The present writ application is in relation to settlement of Ambedkar Bus Stand at Raxaul in the district of East Champaran, which is settled on yearly basis by Raxaul Nagar Parishad. The order impugned is the order of the District Magistrate, as contained in Annexure 5, being order dated 1.11.2007, directing the Nagar Parishad to hold a re-auction. The said order (Annexure 5) is based on the report of the Additional Collector, dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure 6), which is an enquiry report pursuant to the complaint as made by, respondent No. 8 to the Collector of the district. 3. All parties have appeared, counter affidavit and rejoinder thereto have been filed. 4. Nagar Parishad has supported the petitioner whereas State is supporting respondent No.8. 5. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 6. Raxaul Nagar Parishad issued an advertisement inviting bids for settlement of said bus stand. In the said notice itself three alternative dates were given for holding auction i.e. 20th August, 2007, 27th August, 2007 and 30th August, 2007. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that on the first day only two persons turned up i.e. petitioner and respondent No.8. The Executive Officer for lack of competition postponed the auction to the next day but on the next day being busy with flood relief nothing could be done. On the last day, the petitioner's stand is that four persons participated and he being the highest offered, who had offered Rs. 5,51,000/- his offer was accepted and on payment of 75% of the bid amount, lease agreement was executed and the petitioner started collecting toll and fee. It appears that respondent No.8 then made a complain to the Collector of the district. The Collector entrusted the enquiry to the Additional Collector. Additional Collector enquired into the matter but could not give any finding as to any irregularity. Respondent No. 4 the Additional Collector specifically notes did not turn up to assist the enquiry. He, however, noted that as respondent No.8 had offered a higher bid in his letter to the Collector, higher by more than 25% then it would be appropriate that re-bid be held in the interest of revenue. This report was dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure 6). Respondent No. 4 the Additional Collector specifically notes did not turn up to assist the enquiry. He, however, noted that as respondent No.8 had offered a higher bid in his letter to the Collector, higher by more than 25% then it would be appropriate that re-bid be held in the interest of revenue. This report was dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure 6). This report having been received by the Collector, the Collector then forwarded the report to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad and directed him to act in accordance with the recommendation made by the Additional Collector. This order of the Collector is Annexure 5 and is under challenge. 8. Petitioner submits that once a bid has been finalized in favour of a person, which was not subject to approval by any authority then it could not have been set aside on any ground, much less, by an authority, who had no jurisdiction in the matter. He submits that under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, the Collector of the district has not been given any power of superintendence in the manner in which he has exercised the power. Nigam Parishad is not the subordinate to the Collector of the district. He then submitted that the settlement being final and binding and petitioner having started the work mere because someone what has to offer higher amount has no reason for setting aside the settlement. There has to be finality in such matter and mere expectation of earning more revenue would not be a ground to abrogate contractual relationship, which are governed by Law of Contract, for we live in a democratic society governed by rule of law. 9. Respondent No.8, on the other hand, submits that the entire bid process from beginning to end was fraudulent. It was rightly set aside by the Collector. State support the same and it submits that the procedure that was required to be gone through was not strictly followed. Nagar Parishad, on the other hand, stated with reference to documents brought on record that the auction was duly conducted, bid-sheet has been annexed and the same ought not to have been interfered with. 10. State support the same and it submits that the procedure that was required to be gone through was not strictly followed. Nagar Parishad, on the other hand, stated with reference to documents brought on record that the auction was duly conducted, bid-sheet has been annexed and the same ought not to have been interfered with. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view to begin with I may state that once an order has been made by an authority on certain ground then this authority or for that matter, that, order has to be tested with regard to its validity on basis of reasons given therein and not on basis of facts or reasons supplied thereafter, more so, not noticed nor did they form basis for the order in question. 11. Learned counsel for the State has relied on in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. E.G. Nambudiri, since reported in AIR 1991 SC 1216 . In this case their lordships were dealing with the requirement to record reasons for rejection of a representation against adverse remark. Their Lordships held that for such an action no reasons were required to be recorded but if the action was challenged then the authorities could produce file, notes and other documents in support of rejection. 12. Learned State counsel submits that any action could be supported by documents filed even otherwise in view of the said judgment. In my view, the case is clearly distinguishable in facts and in law, for the simple reason that the basis of the judgment is that no reasons are required to be recorded in support of the rejection and if no reasons are recorded, the same can be substantiated. That will not hold good, if reasons are recorded. Once reasons are recorded then the authority cannot supplement the same by other reasons. This preposition is equally well established as noticed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner since reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 : "..... When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Chief Election Commissioner since reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 : "..... When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in beginning may, by-the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds - later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at p. 18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 13. Thus we have to examine the validity of the order of the Collector on basis of what is said. The Collector has not set aside the order on the ground of any mal-practice or on the ground of any illegality. Even the reason of the Additional Collector does not give any such finding, the only and solitary ground given for re-auction is that the respondent No. 8 was ready to offer 25% above the amount offered by the petitioner. This being the only ground, in my view, cannot be sustained. 14. The process of auction is a process of formation of contract. The entire process is governed by Indian Contract Act. The provision clearly lays down that once an unreserved bid is accepted the transaction is complete. It may then be recorded in writing till then it is in the shape of agreement but once agreement is reduced in writing it become an agreement enforceable in law and thus is a binding contract. The provision clearly lays down that once an unreserved bid is accepted the transaction is complete. It may then be recorded in writing till then it is in the shape of agreement but once agreement is reduced in writing it become an agreement enforceable in law and thus is a binding contract. Here the bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner, lease was entered into, petitioner acted thereupon and having deposited the entire liability, started collecting, this contractual obligation could not be set at naught only on the ground that subsequently some-one came up with a better offer. 15. The law of contract does not permit such an action. No non-statutory Circular or Government Circular can over-ride the statutory obligation in this regard. Government cannot riggle out of its contractual obligation merely because it is financially advantagious to it. It must act in accordance with law. 16. Thus, the only ground for setting aside the settlement of the petitioner and ordering a re-bid not being legal and not sustainable in law, the order of the Collector is liable to be set aside and is set aside as such. 17. By interim order, Annexure 5 has earlier itself been stayed, the same is confirmed and the order is quashed. 18. The writ petition stands allowed.