' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 11-10-1992 whereby the refusal of the interim order was maintained by the High Court in civil revision.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit on the ground that he had been annually obtaining on lease the canal land for the purposes of temporary cultivation. When the annual lease expired on 31-3-1992 the petitioner bid for the lot, deposited 10% of the bid money and his bid was recommended by the SDO which was awaiting approval of the Executive Engineer. He challenged the refusal of the competent authority to approve the bid. At the same time, he applied for an interim relief which was granted by the trial Court but on appeal the injunction was refused on the ground that a re- auction had been ordered and the auction had not received final approval of the competent authority. For the same reason the High Court has affirmed that order.
3. It is admitted that the authority competent to approve the auction has not so far approved it. A re-auction of the lease was within the competence of the authority.
4. No case is made out for leave to appeal which is hereby refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.