Pradeep Kant and Shabihul Hasnain, JJ. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O. P. Srivastava and Sri S.C.Kashis for the respondent No.1 and 2. 2. Petitioner is one of the prospective applicants for the allotment of the fisheries rights in respect of pond situated in Mohalla Mwatiyan, District Gonda. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the Administrator which accepts the legal opinion that the settlement of this pond can be done only by open auction and not by inviting quotations. 3. Sri O. P. Srivastava, assailing the aforesaid order submitted that after wide publicity and making due advertisement in two news papers applications were invited from the willing and eligible persons for the allotment of the said pond for exercising fisheries rights in pursuance of which 13 persons had given their quotations. In pursuance of these quotations the person, who has given the highest rates was likely to be selected for allotment of the pond but in the meantime, on a legal opinion sought by the Nagar Palika Parishad, it was decided that this arrangement shall be done by an open auction. 4. Submission is, that the full Bench judgment in the case of Ram Kumar and others Vs. The State of U. P. and others (2006 All. C.J. 123) though makes the requirement of public auction or open tender but it does not mean that the discretion of the Sub Divisional Magistrate or the concerned authority to settle the fishery rights by asking for quotations or by any other process unless such an action is prohibited under some statutory rules or a government order stands taken away. 5. Sri S. C. Kashish has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition saying that no rights have accrued in favour of the petitioner simply because on submission of the quotation, a chart has been prepared mentioning the name of the persons who have given their quotations and that he could not have any say in the matter, if the authorities have decided to settle the pond by open auction. 6. 6. He further submitted that, in fact, relying upon the dictum of full Bench Judgment in the case of Ram Kumar, the Nagar Palika Parishad, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was of the view that the settlement should be made by open auction and therefore legal opinion was also obtained in deciding the matter, therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Petitioner has submitted his quotation, which according to him, appears to be the highest. Sri S. C. Kashish has informed the Court that, in fact, there were three fisheries societies, who had applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 12.3.2010 besides 13 individual persons. 8. In Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of U. P. and others (supra) it has been observed that Sub Divisional Magistrate himself should see that wide publicity is made. Now a days newspapers having wide circulation in the area is surest mode to publish a proposed settlement. As a general rule the Sub Divisional Officer should publish it in a news paper having wide circulation for settlement of fishing right to enable all concerned to participate. As observed above, in the event there are more than one person in one particular category of preference, the Sub Divisional Officer is not prohibited to award the said fishing right, by inviting bids, by tender or auction. 9. The plea of the respondents that the petitioner simply being a prospective applicant for the allotment of fishing rights, having furnished his quotation, does not acquire any right to come to the Court for award of contract because his quotation is the highest. 10. A bidder even in open auction or tenderer can not claim that simply because his rates are highest or lowest, as the case may be, necessarily be awarded the contract. Till the bids are approved by the competent authority, no rights accrue in favour of prospective bidder much less any enforceable right so as to come to the Court and get it enforced. 11. Till the bids are approved by the competent authority, no rights accrue in favour of prospective bidder much less any enforceable right so as to come to the Court and get it enforced. 11. In regard to plea of the respondents about maintainability of the petition, it would be suffice to say that so for the holding of auction in the instant case is concerned, the decision of the Nagar Palika Parishad can not be interfered with by this Court, even in view of the observations made in the Full Bench judgment of Ram Kumar's case (Supra), as in the instant case, there are more than one fisheries society for the same pond including the petitioner and there were 13 individual persons also. Under these circumstances, if a decision has been taken to settle the rights by open auction, no exception can be taken. 12. Apart from this, when the Full Bench judgment says that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has to see that wide publicity is made so that all willing persons can participate which necessarily means that on one hand there should be knowledge to willing and eligible persons for participating in such settlement of fishery rights and at the same time to secure the highest revenue. 13. The settlement of pond, fishery rights, and various other rights for which contracts are entered into between the parties are, in fact, source of income or source of augmentation of income of local bodies. 14. Participation of the tenderer or prospective bidders or prospective applicants would only be done by making wide publicity. 15. The auction is a transparent method where all participants participate in different categories against each other and the bides are openly made. 16. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere in the decision of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda. 17. The petition is dismissed.