JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing letter dated 19.12.2007 (Annex.-4 and Annex.-5) whereby the respondents refunded the registration amount and further submitted that the respondents may be directed to issue allotment letter and demand notice for the plots/shops in question viz., No. D-26 and 27 in Zone No. 85 of Sector-B, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. As per facts of the case, an auction notice was issued by the respondents in the month of January 2007 and petitioners who were in need of shops submitted their bid for shops in sealed envelope for allotment of shops No. D-26 and D-27 in Zone 85 of Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. The petitioners' bid being highest and above the reserve price, the same was finalised on 12.02.2007 and petitioners deposited 25 per cent of the amount within stipulated time as required by the respondents. 3. After waiting for some time, the petitioners requested for allotment and, for that purpose, sent a notice for demand of justice for depositing the remaining amount; but, without assigning any reasons and informing the same to the petitioners the respondents canceled their bid vide letter dated 19.07.2007 and passed order for refund of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition was filed on 29.01.2008 but, till today, the respondents have not filed reply nor the respondents have made allotment in favour of the petitioners inspite of the fact that 25% amount was deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated time after finalisation of their bid being the highest. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that it is a case in which the respondent are acting arbitrarily and illegally and even not filed reply before this Court for last 4-5 years, therefore, it is a case in which the impugned communication is required to be quashed and direction is to be issued to the respondents for handing over the shops No. D-26 and D-27 in Zone No. 85 of Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur while imposing exemplary cost. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that although reply is not filed but it appears that proper cost was not received for the shops in question, therefore, the auction proceedings was quashed and amount is refunded to the petitioners. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that although reply is not filed but it appears that proper cost was not received for the shops in question, therefore, the auction proceedings was quashed and amount is refunded to the petitioners. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused entire record of the case. 7. It is very strange that once the bid given by the petitioners in accordance with law was finalised and they were directed to deposit the amount, the respondents illegally refused to allot the shops to the petitioners inspite of the fact that they were ready to deposit the remaining amount. It is abundantly clear that no reasons are assigned for cancellation of the auction proceedings and to refund the amount. 8. It is duty of the State instrumentality to act fairly but, here, in this case, the petitioners participated in the auction proceedings and their bid was accepted and they deposited 25% of the amount but without assigning any reason the respondents returned the amount and refused to allot the shops. In the opinion of this Court, it is a glaring example of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities before filing this writ petitioner and, after filing of the writ petition, no reply is filed to the writ petition for last more than 4 years. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice on 04.02.2008 passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner pursuant to the auction notice for auction of shop no. D-26 and 27, Zone No. 85, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur issued by the respondent Housing Board submitted his bid in sealed cover with 25% of bid amount but when no demand notice was issued even after the lapse of nine months, he submitted a representation to the respondent on 22.12.2007, but instead of issuing demand notice, the respondents have illegally refunded the amount deposited by the petitioner by communication dated 13.12.07 and 19.12.07 with respect of above two shops and have not informed any reason of doing so. In spite of his bid being highest, his bid was not accepted. It was argued that now the respondents might auction the shops again. Issue notice, returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, status quo with regard to shops no. In spite of his bid being highest, his bid was not accepted. It was argued that now the respondents might auction the shops again. Issue notice, returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, status quo with regard to shops no. D-26 and 27 in Zone No. 85 of Sector-B of Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur." 9. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned communications dated 13.12.2007 and 19.12.2007 (Annex.-4 and Annex.-5) are quashed and set aside and the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur is directed to accept the remaining amount from the petitioners and give possession of the shops No. D-26 and D-27 in Zone No. 85 of Sector-B of Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur to the petitioners within a period of two months from today and, further, pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- each of both the petitioners which may be adjusted towards the remaining amount.Writ Petition Allowed. *******