Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10th June, 1985 (annexure-4) passed by the Collector Ganganagar in favour of respondent No. 3 for establishment of Brick Kiln.
2. Facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner and his brother is a partnership firm. The Collector Ganganagar issued notice dated 30th April, 1985 for auction of land measuring 10 bighas situated in Killa No. 5 to 8 and 13 to 18 of square No. 293 of Chak 45 P.S. Tehsil Raising Nagar for the establishment of brick kilns. This land was reserved for the purpose of brick kilns by the Collector Sriganganagar. In pursuance of this notice the petitioner gave a bid. His bid was highest bid for a period of three years. According to the petitioner's bid the lease money for 10 bighas comes to Rs 69150/- for a period of three years. The petitioner deposited Rs. 17288/-being 1/4th amount of auction money. It has further been submitted that on the same day another auction of same land was held for a period of five years and in that highest bidder was respondent No. 3 and Rs. 1800/- were the amount fixed for per year per bigha. The amount of five years comes to Rs. 90,000/-. The petitioner only gave bid for lease for three years as against this the respondent No. 3 gave bid for a period of five years lease. The petitioner did not give any bid for a period of 5 years. Both these proceedings were sent, to the Collector for confirmation. The Collector confirmed the bid of the respondent No. 3 and granted lease of five years at rate of Rs. 1800/- per bigha per year. This action has been challenged by the petitioner by the present writ petition.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his highest bid ought to have been accepted by the Collector instead of respondent No. 3. It was purely a discretionary matter for the Collector that whether he should accept the highest bid for three years or highest bid for the period of five years. The Collector after considering the matter accepted the bid of respondent No. 3 for a period of five years. I do not find myself pursuaded to disapprove the action of the Collector. It is a fact that the petitioner did not give any bid for a period of five years and he contended himself to give bid for a period of three years only. If the petitioner has given bid for five years then the matter would have stand on different footing. When both auctions were held and notice was for auction for the period of three and five years and the petitioner gave a bid for three years only and the respondent gave a bid for five years it was open for the Collector to accept the highest bidder of either of the auction. If the Collector in the interest of administration has accepted the highest bid of respondent No. 3 who has given for a period of five years, the action of the Collector cannot be said to be illegal or violative of provisions of law. This was discretionary matter of the Collector and the Collector exercised his discretion in favour of the respondent No. 3 for a period of five years. I do not think it calls for any interference with the discretion exercised by the Collector.
4. Thus, in the result I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.