- (1.) M. Katju, and O. P Garg, JJ. Heard Sri Dinesh Dwivedi for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respon dents.
(2.) THIS case pertains to an auction for collection of toll-tax on a bridge situated at Ram Ganga river District Farrukhabad. The terms of the auction notice dated 28-9-91 annexure-1 to the writ petition states that the auction will be for three years. Surpris ingly enough the contract which was sub sequently signed with the petitioners was for five years. In our opinion, the contract has to be in conformity with the auction notice as held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC1628. Hence, we hold that the con tract dated 7-11-92 shall be treated for only three years and not for five years. It may be mentioned that the auction bid, copy of which is annexure- CA-1 also mentioned the terms of the auction as three years and that was signed by the petitioners. Annexure-CA-9 which is a copy of the application of the petitioners before the Sub-Registrar of Stamps Farrukhabad, where also the petitioners have mentioned the term of the auction as three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that once a contract has been signed it has to be honoured. We are of the opinion that no contract of an auction can violatie the terms of the auction otherwise there will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitu tion of India. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it will follow that even if the auction notice men tioned the period of contract as three years, subsequently the petitioners can get a con tract for 50 years. This will be wholly illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitu tion of India. Thus, there is no force in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. In terim order is vacated. Petition dismissed. .;