The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's awareness and participation in the auction process precluded the challenge to the time limits as arbitrary or unwarranted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Labour Cooperative Society, registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, has challenged the auction of Sand Ghats at Sr. No.53 and Sr. No.56 of Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur.

3. Though in prayer Ghat at Sr. No.49 at Bawangaon and the Ghat at Sr. No.57 WakiB of Tahsil Saoner are mentioned, during arguments, the petitioner has pressed for relief only in relation to Ghat at Sr. No.53 i.e. Karaj GhatA and Ghat at Sr. No.56 i.e. WakiA.

4. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondent nos.1 to 3 had held e-auction of various Sand Ghats and as per their policy decision dated 25/10/2010, all Sand Ghats need to be auctioned on a single day. Accordingly, sand ghats were divided into suitable lots and advertisement was issued which notified 22/12/2012 as the date on which four lots were to be e-auctioned. Karaj Ghat-A is included in Lot No.4 while Waki-A is included in Lot No.1. The petitioner participated in those auctions. The time schedule for Lot No.1 was 1’O clock in after noon till 2:00 p.m. with three automatic extensions to enable the competing bidder to increase his bid if a higher bid was received before 10 minutes of the scheduled time of closure i.e. 2:00 p.m. Lot No.4 has been auctioned in the evening between 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. with three similar automatic extensions of 10 minutes each. The petitioner has in this background urged that when purpose of eauction was to enable the State Government to procure highest price, the introduction of time limit in the process is arbitrary as it militates with said object. It is the contention that an auction must be permitted to come to its logical end by enabling all competitors to bid till they wish and till the highest bid comes on record. Thus, introduction of closure time of 2:30 for Lot No.1 or then 8:30 for Lot No.4 after three extensions is questioned as unsustainable and arbitrary.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner was participating in e-auction, by using four computers and I.P. Address of three computers was known to respondent nos.1 to 3 as also respondent no.4 technical expert company, which provided necessary software and services for conducting that auction. At the crucial juncture, the link to petitioner's three disclosed computers got disconnected and thereby the petitioner was prohibited from participating in E-auction. Attention is invited to terms and conditions of e-auction process to show that the respondents were/are aware of the computers which the petitioner is using and, therefore, could have easily disabled the link to those three computers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fourth computer, whose I.P. Address was not disclosed, and therefore, was not within the knowledge of respondents, got connected and, therefore, the petitioner could participate in auction in the evening in relation to Karaj Ghat-A.

6. To demonstrate how prescribing time limit and thereby artificially bringing to an end the auction process has prejudice the petitioner, attention has been invited to flow chart of offers received in relation to Kharaj Ghat-A. It is pointed out that the petitioner was participating and was regularly increasing his bids as per the bids of rivals. One M/s. Nagpur Sand Trading Private Limited increased its bid to Rs.2,31,00,000/-at 20:29:59 hours i.e. just a one second prior to the expiry of prescribed time of 20.30 hours i.e. 8.30 PM. After said increased offer was registered and displayed on screen, the petitioner could not have done anything within one second and thus the petitioner has been denied opportunity to increase the bid further within stipulated time. Still the petitioner forthwith communicated its increased bid of Rs.2,35,0