The highest bid in a public auction for ferry settlement is final unless explicitly disapproved with justified reasons by the Chief Engineer, whose failure to comply with procedural requirements constitutes grounds for judicial review.

1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts are that the tolls of Kakilamukh - Neamati - Kamalabari Ferry were put to public auction on the 22nd March 1961 with a view to let it out for the year 1961-62. The petitioner Dharmeswar Kalita offered the highest bid of Rs. 61,400/-. The auction sale was conducted by Sri A. Ahmed, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar who has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 to the present petition. The petitioner after Ins bid had been accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (hereinafter called 'the conducting officer') deposited the requisite money as prescribed under the rules.
The conducting officer sent the proposal for acceptance of the petitioner's bid to the Chief Engineer who is impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present petition, for approval. The Chief Engineer did not approve of the settlement with the petitioner and ordered settlement with one Shankhadhar Bora who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the present petition, at Rs. 61,300/-. The petitioner has filed as annexure B to his affidavit, a copy of the telegram purported to have been sent by the Chief Engineer on the 24th April 1961 to the Executive Engineer, Jorhat intimating to him that the offer of Shankhadhar Bora for Rs. 61,300/- has been accepted and that the lease should be executed in his favour after he has deposited the necessary security.

2. A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and another by respondent No. 2 the Chief Engineer. According to the counter - affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer the ferry was put up for auction for eleven months from 1st May 1961 to 31st March 1962. It is stated in the counter - affidavit that the settlement was made with the respondent No. 3 in accordance with S. 8 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Rr. 19, 19 (a) and 19 (b) of the Rules framed under the Northern India Ferries Act (hereinafter called 'the Rules').
It is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter - affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer that on the 24th April 1961 he passed the order giving reasons why he could not approve the proposal for settlement with the petitioner and directed that the settlement be made with respondent No. 3. A copy of the said order is submitted herewith as annexure I of his affidavit.

3. The present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed for issue of a writ or a direction to the opposite parties to show cause why the order of settlement by the Chief Engineer should not be set aside and after hearing the parties to make the rule absolute. The remedy provided under Art. 226 of the Constitution is an extra - ordinary remedy available to a citizen and it is essential that the direction or the relief which the petitioner is seeking should be clearly and specifically mentioned in the petition.
A general prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus be issued as against the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside, to my mind, does not conform to the requirement of the rules of this court. It is necessary that the direction which the petitioner prays for should be specifically mentioned in the relief.
It is true that the direction which the petitioner on the facts of the case is entitled to, will not be refused to him on the ground that he has not specifically asked for a particular direction, but the Constitution has been invoked for over ten years now and it is time t