Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Pushpila Bisht for opposite party no. 4. Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. has put in appearance on behalf of the State.
(2.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the correctness of order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the revisional authority under Rule 78 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 allowing the revision filed by opposite party no.4. The occasion to invoke revisional jurisdiction arose to opposite party no.4 when the District Magistrate by order dated 28.12.2017 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition proceeded to cancel the letter of intent issued to him and forfeited the earnest money on the ground of default.
(3.) On a close scrutiny of the documents placed on record as well as the pleadings set out in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner being a participant in the proceedings has not essentially raised any dispute relating to the observance of procedure for holding the auction, wherein the opposite party no.4 was the highest bidder. The present writ petition has rather challenged the jurisdiction of revisional authority who according to the petitioner could not relax the condition of deposit of 50% bid amount beyond two days after the letter of intent was cancelled.;