Sub-clause (2) of Clause 15, enables an applicant to submit an application for re-auction within three succeeding days from the date of auction. By virtue of sub-clause(3), such an application would be liable to be considered only if the applicant offers at least 10% in excess of the highest bid. However, by virtue of sub-clause (2) itself, such an application ought to have been accompanied by 1/3rd amount of the highest bid in auction in cash or by bank draft, bankers cheque or bank's cash order. Sub-clause (6) binds the earlier highest bidder for a period of fifteen days on his bid despite re-auction. In the case in hand, respondent No. 4 submitted an application on 24-2-2007 (Annx. R/1) for re-auction of the subject shops. He offered the bids at a total sum of Rs. 41,01,111/- (being 10% in excess of the earlier highest bid of Rs. 37,21,000/-). 1/3rd of this amount was not deposited with Annx. R/1. On perusal, it may be seen that although the respondent No.4 expressed his preparedness to deposit the said amount, but the same was not, in fact, deposited as required by sub-clause (2) of Clause 15 of Annx. P/4. On 24-3-2007, balance of 1/3rd of the amount was deposited by the respondent No. 4 vide Annx. R/2. The Excise Commissioner caused on inquiry wherein it was found that the respondent No. 4 had visited the District Excise office on 24-2-2007, but the money could not be deposited on account of absence of the concerning employee. In the inquiry, it was further found that the contention of the respondent No. 4 that on 26-2-2007. the money was not accepted by him in the office, was not found to be correct, because the respondent No. 4 was not found to have visited the Excise office on 26-2-2007. However, the deposit made on 24-3-2007 was accepted by the Excise Commissioner in exercise of his power under Clause 19 and re-aution has been ordered vide the impugned order contained in Annx. P/1. Shri Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the bids of the petitioner being the highest were duly accepted and re-auction of the subject shops could not be directed, because the application for re-auction was not accompanied by 10% of the amount of offered bids. The Excise Commissioner has no power to allow the respondent No. 4 to deposit the 1/3rd amount beyond three days from the date of auction as required under sub-clause (2) of Clause 15 of Annx. P/4. Learned counsel Shri Saraf, submitted that sub-clause (2) of Clause 15 being mandatory in nature, could not have been relaxed by the Excise Commissioner and the same was not, in fact, relaxed.