The petitioners obtained rule nisi under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against (1) The Union of India, (2) The Union Territory of Manipur, (3) The Chief Commissioner of Manipur, (4) The Deputy Commissioner of Manipur, (5) The Chief Fishery Officer of Manipur, (6) The Yangai Fishing Cooperative Society Ltd. and (7) Laisram Kumar Singh to show cause why a Writ of Certiorari should not be issued quashing the orders passed by the respondents 3 to 5 (the Chief Commissioner of Manipur, the Deputy Commissioner of Manipur and the Chief Fishery Officer of Manipur) confirming the bid for fishery No. 82/86 Keinou Awangsoi at Rs. 40,000/- per annum for 3 years from 1-4-68 to 31-3-71 and for an appropriate Writ against them declaring that the auction was for Rs. 40,000/- for 3 years and not for 1 year and directing that the lease should be given to the petitioners.
2. The respondents showed cause.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the sale of the fishery No. 82/86 Keinou Awangsoi and some other fisheries was advertised in the Manipur Gazette dated 1-1-68 for public auction for 3 years 1-4-68 to 31-3-71. Vide Ext. A/1. The sale was fixed on 15-2-68. As intending bidders, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 1,730/- in the Manipur State Cooperative Bank Ltd. at Imphal towards part payment of the security deposit. The petitioners joined the auction and offered a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for fishery No. 82/86 for 3 years. The officer conducting the sale accepted the bid of the petitioners as it was the highest bid. On 16-2-68 the petitioners tendered another sum of Rs. 8,270/- in addition to Rupees 1,730/- already deposited to make up Rs. 10,000/- being one-fourth of Rupees 40,000/- as security amount as contemplated by Fishery Rules of Manipur framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Assam Regulation 1 of 1886) and the Indian Fisheries Act (Act IV of 1897); hereinafter called as the Fishery Rules.
But, the 5th respondent. Fishery officer refused to take Rs. 8,270/- stating that the bid of Rs. 40,000/- was only for 1 year and that the security deposit would be Rs. 30,000/- being one-fourth of Rupees 1,20,000/-. Thereafter, on 16-2-68 the petitioners went to the office of the fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner of Manipur with an application to request him to permit the petitioners to deposit the money. But, the fourth respondent was not in the office. The petitioners again went to his office and left the petition with the clerk in charge. The petition was registered on 19-2-68. The fourth respondent communicated an order on 4-3-68 refusing the petitioners' request. The petitioners filed an appeal before the third respondent the Chief Commissioner of Manipur being C. C. Fishery Appeal No. 5 of 1968. But, he dismissed the appeal by his order dated 3-7-68. Vide Ext. A/2. The fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner of Manipur again sent another letter dated 25-9-68 to the petitioner No. 2 demanding him to deposit Rupees 30,000/- by 7-10-68 and to complete the formalities relating to the sale of the fishery by 7-10-68 and stated that, in default, the fishery would be put to auction again at the risk of the 2nd petitioner. He cancelled the sale and put the fishery to re-auction on 30-10-68. Vide Ext. A/3. The respondents 3 to 5 should have held that the petitioners' bid in the auction for Rs. 40,000/- was for 3 years and not for 1 year. Hence the petition.
4. The respondents 1 to 5 filed joint counter alleging that the auction was held in respect of 241 Government fisheries according to the notification in Ext. B/1 on an yearly basis. In accordance with the practice followed in the case of sale of Government fisheries, the auctioning officer announced just before the commencement of sale of each of the fisheries that the bid would be on yearly revenue basis. The first petitioner was not a bidder. The 2nd petitioner deposited Rs. 1,730/- as an intending bidder towards earnest money, though he should have deposited Rs. 4,200/- representing one-fourth of Rs. 16,800/- which was the total revenue for the proceeding 3 years as shown in column IV of Ext. B/1. On provisional acceptance of the highest bid, the second petitioner transferred the earnest money of Rs. 1,730/- on 15-2-68 as part of the security by deposit-at-call No. 09812 dated 15-2-68 with the Manipur State Co-operative Bank Ltd. in favour of the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner, Manipur.
The auctioning officer called upon the petitioner No. 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,270/- in addition to the part payment of the security deposit of Rs. 1,730/-within 24 hours of the acceptance of the bid, i.e., before 2 P. M. on 16-2-68, being one-fourth of the revenue of rupees one lakh and twenty thousand for the full term of settlement of 3 years in accordance with the Fishery Rule No. 30 and clause II of the conditions mentioned in Ext. B/1 since he was the highest bidder for the fishery in question, who offered Rupees 40,000/- as yearly revenue. But, the second petitioner made an application mala fide before the fourth respondent on 19-2-68, by dating it as 16-2-68, alleging that his bid for Rupees 40,000/- per year was meant for the full term of 3 years and that he should be permitted to pay the security deposit at the rate of Rs. 13,300/- per annum. Vide Ext. B/3. In the said petition, the second petitioner falsely alleged that the second bidder declared Rs. 11, 500/- although the second bidder offered only Rs. 10,000/- Even on the basis that the bid was for Rs. 40,000/- for 3 years, the second petitioner did not tender the security amount of Rs. 13,333.34 paise on 16-2-68.
The fourth respondent intimated to him that his allegation that his bid for Rs. 40,000/- was for 3 years was not true. Vide Ext. B/4.
The petitioners filed C. C. Fishery Appeal Case No. 5 of 1968 before the third respondent the Chief Commissioner of Manipur contending that the second petitioner bid for Rs. 40,000/- for the full term of 3 years on behalf of both the petitioners within the hearing of the auctioning officer and other bidders present at the spot, though all the bidders offered bids on yearly basis. Vide Ext. B/5. One Baldev Sarma, who was second highest bidder, claimed that his bid should be accepted in terms of Rule 30 of the Fishery Rules. The fifth respondent referred the matter to the Government. In the meanwhile, Baldev Sarma also preferred an appeal (C. C. Fishery Appeal No. 4 of 1968) before the third respondent for settlement of the fishery in his favour. The third respondent held that the second petitioner's bid was for Rs. 40,000/- per annum and not for the full term of 3 years and that the application was filed mala fide on 19-2-68 by antedating it to stop other bidders from bidding. The third respondent confirmed the sale at Rs. 40,000/- as annual revenue in favour of the second petitioner under rule 39 of the Fishery Rules and directed that, if he failed to execute the counterpart of the lease in form No. III within two weeks as provided in rule 39 of the Fishery Rules, the fishery should be resold at his risk. The third respondent dismissed C. C. Fishery Appeal No. 4 of 1968. Vide Ext. B/6.
5. The fourth respondent called upon the second petitioner in pursuance of the orders of the third respondent to furnish security deposit of Rs. 28,270/- Vide Ext. B/7. Subsequently, the fourth respondent passed another order calling upon the second petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,270/- by 7-10-68 to make up the security amount of Rs. 30,000/- and to execute the counterpart of the lease in form no. III as required by Rule 38 of the Fishery Rules and informed him further that, in case he failed to do so, the fishery would be resold at his risk. Vide Ext. B/8. The provision contained in Rule 30 of the Fishery Rules was also mentioned in clause IV of the conditions of Ext. B/1 to apprise the intending bidders that the bid was for 1 year.
6. In all the previous auctions as well as in the auction for the year 1965 (vide Ext. B/9), it was notified that the Government fisheries would be sold for a period of 3 years with the same conditions as those contained in Ext. B/1. The first petitioner was a bidder in the auction sale of the same fishery held on 30-4-65 for the previous term from 1-5-65 to 31-3-68. He offered bid amount of Rupees 5,600/- per annum, which was accepted. He enjoyed the fishery for the said period of 3 years. Vide Ext. B/10. The first petitioner had also filed a petition, which shows that his bid was on yearly revenue basis. Vide Ext. B/11. All the bidders offered bids on annual basis.
There was no occasion for any bidder to bid for an amount for the full term of 3 years.
7. Besides the second petitioner, there were other bidders who offered big amounts with a mala fide intention to stop other bidders from bidding. One Ibomcha Sarma, as is the case of the petitioner no. 2, offered Rs. 25,000/- per annum in respect of fishery no. 64 against the bid of Rs. 6,630/- per annum in the previous year. But, he failed to deposit the security amount. Similarly, one Ahongsangbam Chaoton Singh offered highest bid of Rs. 5,050/- per annum as against the previous bid of Rs. 200/- in respect of the fishery no. 81. The ten cases of the highest bidders including the second petitioner, who failed to deposit the security amounts as required by Rule 30 of the Fishery Rules were reported to the Government for necessary orders under R. 39 of the Fishery Rules. Vide Ext. B/15. Fisheries Nos. 64 and 81 when resold fetched Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 300/- respectively and the reauctions were confirmed. Vide Exts. B/16 and B/17.
8. As the second petitioner failed to execute the counter part in form no. III despite the notice in Ext. B/8, the fishery was again advertised for resale. Vide Ext. B/12. In the re-auction the respondents 6 and 7 and one Nasib Ali were the bidders. As the fishery did not lie within the area of operation of the sixth respondent, the fourth respondent refused to give it any concession. The seventh respondent was the highest bidder who offered the bid of Rs. 7,600/- per annum and accordingly the fourth respondent referred the matter to the third respondent for confirmation. Vide Ext. B/14.
9. The order of third respondent relating to the confirmation of sale in favour of the second petitioner holding that the bid for Rs. 40,000/- was purely an administrative order, which is not open to review in the Writ petition.
10. The sixth respondent filed counter opposing the petition.
11. The seventh respondent filed a separate counter alleging that he was present on 15-2-68 when the auction took place. There were five bidders who participated in the auction. Nasib Ali, a bidder, colluded with the second petitioner. Both of them planned that the second petitioner should offer a big amount to stop other bidders from bidding and that Nasib Ali should make his offer in such a way that he should be the second highest bidder, so that if the bid was knocked down in favour of the second petitioner the latter could slip away by making default in the payment of the balance security amount of Rs. 28,600/- and forfeiting only his earnest money of Rs. 1,7300 so that Nasib Ali as the second highest bidder might obtain settlement. The plan fell through due to inadvertence of Nasib Ali and when the bid amount came up to Rs. 11,000/-, Aribam Baldeva Sharma bid for Rupees 12,000/-. The second petitioner mistakenly believed the bid of Rs. 12,000/- to be that of Nasib Ali. As the bid of the second petitioner was the highest, the auctioning officer knocked down the bid in his favour and called upon the second petitioner to pay the balance of security amount of Rs. 28,600/- before 2 P. M. on 16-2-68. Then the second petitioner did not take any objection and did not state that his bid was for a term of 3 years of settlement. All the bidders were fully aware that the bid was on yearly basis. That Nasib Ali entered into conspiracy with the petitioners is evident from the fact that in C. C. Fishery Appeal Case No. 5 of 1968 Nasib Ali filed a false affidavit in support of the claim of the second petitioner that the latter bid for 3 years at a time, although he himself bid on yearly basis. The re-auction was held openly in which the seventh respondent was the highest bidder and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. The first question that arises for determination is whether the bid amount of Rs. 40,000/- offered by the second petitioner was for one year or for 3 years, though it is common ground that the term of the lease was for 3 years from 1-4-68 to 31-3-71. There is nothing in the rules 22 to 43 of the Manipur Fishery Rules to show on what basis the bids should be made. Rule 23 lays down that the right of fishing should not ordinarily be leased out for less than 3 years. Rule 24 lays down that the Deputy Commissioner should annually fix a date for the auction of the fisheries. Rule 25 relates to the auction of fisheries in Jiribam. Under rule 26 the fisheries should be sold by public auction. Under rule 27 the intending bidders should furnish proof of financial solvency. Under rule 28 they should deposit earnest money being one-fourth of the average of the accepted bids in respect of the fishery concerned for the proceeding 3 years. Under rule 29 the Deputy Commissioner should normally accept the highest bid. Under rule 30 the accepted bidder should pay the difference between the earnest money deposited by him and one-fourth of the revenue for the full term of the settlement within 24 hours of the acceptance of the bid. Under Rule 31 the earnest money together with such deposit should be treated as the security deposit to be adjusted only towards the payment of the last instalment.
Rule 32 lays down the dates on which the instalments of fishery revenue are payable. Under rule 33 if the lessee relinquishes his lease, the lease will be terminated without any notice and the fishery will be put to resale. Rule 34 lays down that any loss caused to the Government due to the resale should be realised from the defaulting lessee. rules 35 to 38 are not material. Under rule 39 sale of any fishery in Manipur shall be reported to the Chief Commissioner for confirmation and the sale shall not be final unless it is confirmed by the Chief Commissioner. rules 40 to 42 relate to offences relating to fisheries. Under R. 43 appeals lie to such authority and in such manner as are prescribed under S. 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation as applied to Manipur. Ext. A/1, which is of the same form as form no. I prescribed by the Manipur Fishery Rules, contains the same provisions. It shows that the lease in question was for 3 years namely, from 1-4-68 to 31-3-71. Condition no. I shows that the officer conducting the sale did not bind himself to accept the highest bid or any bid. Condition no. 4 shows that if the purchaser failed to execute a counterpart in Form no. III, the fishery would be resold at his risk and that he was bound to make good the difference between his bid and the amount realised by the subsequent sale. Item No. 15 at Page 100 of Ext. A/1 relates to the fishery in question and mentions that the previous annual rental was Rs. 5,600/-.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out the following two circumstances to show that the bid amount offered by the second petitioner was for 3 years.
(i) Firstly, as already stated, Ext. A/1 shows that the annual rental for the previous term of 3 years was Rs. 5,600/-. Even the reauction fetched only Rs. 7,600/- per annum. So, it is improbable that the second petitioner would have bid for Rs. 40,000/- per annum.
(ii) Secondly, the Government of Manipur published another notification Ext. A/4 dated 23-4-68, in which the respondents 3 to 5 made it clear that the bid should be on annual basis. Vide condition no. 1 in Ext. A/4. But, the subsequent notification might have been made by the respondents 3 to 5 by way of abundant caution to clear any doubt, after the disputes between the parties arose. It cannot be looked into to clarify the previous notification Ext. A/1. Vide page 98 of Craies on Statute Law, 1952 Edition.
14. Thus, though prima facie it looks as though that the bid for Rs. 40,000/-was for the entire period of 3 years, there are the following circumstances which go to show that every year the auctions were held on the basis of annual rentals and that in the present case also it was held on such a basis :
(i) Firstly, the first petitioner was the highest bidder for the previous term from 1-4-1965 to 31-3-1968. Ext. B/9 is a copy of the notification dated 4-1-65, under which the auction was held regarding the fishery in question. The first petitioner bid for a sum of Rs. 5,600/- per annum. Vide Ext. B/10 copy of the bid list dated 30-4-1965. Ext. B/11 shows that the first petitioner filed an application on 31-10-1966 before the fourth respondent requesting him to extend the time for payment of the annual instalment of the rent and further requesting him not to put the fishery to re-auction, though he could not pay the instalment amount before the due date. So, the fact that the first petitioner was the highest bidder for the previous term in respect of the same fishery for an annual rental of Rs. 5,600/- shows that the petitioners were aware that the bid was on annual rental basis.
(ii) Secondly, the fifth respondent Chief Fishery Officer, Manipur filed an affidavit in the stay petition stating that he announced before the auctions were held that the auctions would be on the basis of annual rental.
(iii) Thirdly, Ext. A/1 shows that on 15-2-1968 30 fisheries were put to auction. The fishery in question was number 15 in the serial order. All the fisheries were sold only on annual rental basis on that day. The petitioners who were present must have been observing that the auctions were being held on the basis of annual rentals. Inasmuch as the second petitioner was the bidder for the fishery in question, which was taken up as serial no. 15 in the course of the auctions, he must have witnessed the previous auctions of the other fisheries and must have clearly known that the auction of the fishery in question was also made on the basis of annual rental.
(iv) Fourthly, Ext. B/2 is a copy of the bid register relating to the fishery in question. It shows that at first Nasib Ali started the bid for Rs. 6,000/-. Then the next bidder was Longjam Tombi for Rs. 10,000/-. Nasib Ali later bid for Rs. 10,500/-. One Senjalal Haokip then bid for Rs. 11,000/-. Next, A Baldev Sharma bid for Rs. 12,000/-. Ext. B/2 shows that thereupon, the second petitioner made a big jump with his bid for Rs. 40,000/-. The fact that the other bidders started with a bid for Rupees 6,000/- and stopped at Rs. 12,000/- clearly indicates that the bids were made on the basis of annual rentals. The second petitioner, who had bid at a stretch for Rupees 40,000/-, could not be said to have been bona fide, if he really intended to bid for the entire period of 3 years. For, if that was his intention, then his further intention was to scare away the other bidders, as they would not bid for more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum being under the impression that the said bid was for one year.
No doubt, the bid amount of Rupees 40,000/- which is very high suggests that it might have been the bid amount for 3 years. But, in the context in which the second petitioner had bid at a stretch, when the other bidders were bidding only on annual rental basis, the second petitioner could not be stated to have acted bona fide. According to the respondents, the second petitioner was under the impression that his man Nasib Ali was the second highest bidder and the second petitioner thought that nobody else would compete by offering more than Rupees 40,000/- and wanted to drop from the bid, so that the next bid of Nasib Ali might be accepted. There seems to be much force in their contention. But, it so happened that the next highest bidder was Baldev Sharma and not Nasib Ali. That there were some mala fides on the part of the second petitioner and Nasib Ali is clear from Ext. B/18 affidavit filed by Nasib Ali in support of the petitioners' case in C. C. Fishery Appeal Case No. 5 of 1968. Therein Nasib Ali made two palpably incorrect statements.
Firstly, he stated that Baldev Sharma did not bid for Rs. 12,000/- and that yet a false statement was made in the bid list (Ext. B/2) that Baldev Sharma had bid for Rs. 12,000/-. This is a false statement inasmuch as Ext. B/2 shows that Baldev Sharma was the second highest bidder for Rs. 12,000/-. Secondly, Nasib Ali stated in Ext. B/18 that the second petitioner offered Rs. 46,000/- as the bid amount for 3 years. But, he and the other bidders bid in the auction on the yearly rental basis. So, Ext. B/18 shows that Nasib Ali might have been a collusive bidder with the second petitioner and that the latter was under the impression that Nasib Ali's bid was the second highest, so that if the second petitioner dropped, Nasib Ali's bid on the annual rental basis would be accepted, though this might involve forfeiture of a small amount deposited by the second petitioner.
15. Exts. B/15 to B/17 show that there were at least 9 other bidders of the type of the second petitioner, who bid for abnormal amounts and subsequently withdrew. So, it looks as though there were a number of such bidders like the second petitioner, who bid for abnormal amounts with a mala fide motive to frighten away the other bidders.
16. Thus, it is not as though the petitioners' case that the second petitioner had bid on the basis of the full term of 3 years is correct. The contention of the respondents 3 to 5 that the bids were made on annual basis is also sustainable.When two views are possible, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which can be rectified by the High Court. Vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumala, AIR 1960 SC 137. Besides, the respondents 3 and 4 gave findings of fact that the auction was held on an yearly rental basis and the High Court does not interfere with such a finding. Vide Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398 and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168.
17. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were under a bona fide mistake that the auction was held on the basis that the rental was for 3 years and not yearly and that, therefore, the auction is liable to be set aside. But, under Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act the mistake must be a mutual one and not unilateral which would render an agreement void. Under S. 22 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract is not voidable mainly because one of the parties to it was under a mistake as to a matter of fact. Vide also Dayabhai Tribhovandas v. Lakhmichand Panachand, (1885) ILR 9 Bom 358, Haji Abdul Rahman v. Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Co., (1892) ILR 16 Bom 561, Dwijendra Krishna Dutt v. Kedar Nath, AIR 1929 Cal 670 and Dhulipudi Namayya v. Union of India, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 533. In the present case the mistake, if at all, was only unilateral on the part of the second petitioner. It was not a mutual mistake and the respondents were never under the mistake that the auction was being held on the basis that the bid amount represented the rental for the entire period of 3 years. So, this contention fails.
18. The next contention of the petitioners' Counsel is that before the bid was accepted by third respondent Chief Commissioner, the second petitioner had withdrawn the bid, firstly, by refusing to deposit the security amount and secondly, by filing a petition on 16-2-68 before the fourth respondent withdrawing the bid. Regarding the first aspect of the case the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Contract Act. Under section 3 of the Indian Contract Act the communication of a proposal or its acceptance and the revocation of a proposal and acceptance, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.
Under section 6 of the Indian Contract Act, a proposal is revoked by the communication of revocation by the proposer to the other party etc. This ground was not taken by the petitioners in their Writ petition. The mere failure on the part of the petitioners to deposit the balance of the security amount after the auction was held could not, under the circumstances of the case, be held to have the effect of its revocation and of communicating it to the respondents 3 to 5. For, the second petitioner had time till 2 P. M. on 16-2-1968 for making the deposit. In fact, his case is that he offered to make the deposit, but that the 4th respondent refused to accept, the deposit. Regarding the second contention that the second petitioner filed a petition on 16-2-68 before the fourth respondent revoking the bid, it is seen from Ext. B/3 true copy of the petition that though it purported to be dated 16-2-68, according to the respondents it was filed on 19-2-68 after the third respondent accepted the bid on 16-2-68. The third respondent stated in Ext. A/2 that the petition was antedated and filed on 19-2-68 with a mala fide motive. Under rule 39 of the Manipur Fishery Rules the offer did not ripen into a contract until the bid was accepted by the third respondent. The second petitioner purported to withdraw the bid after the bid was accepted by the third respondent. So, he could not be permitted to withdraw the bid after it was confirmed. Vide Muthu Pillai v. Secretary of State, AIR 1923 Mad 582, Somasundaram Pillai v. Provincial Government of Madras. AIR 1947 Mad 366, Union of India v. S. Narain Singh, AIR 1953 Punj 274 and Raghunadhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 110. There is no reason why the second petitioner did not withdraw his bid on 15-2-1968 itself.
19. The contention of the respondents' Counsel is that even under the terms of Ext. A/1 or according to the Manipur Fishery Rules the third respondent was not bound to accept the highest bid, as the Government had its own policy in accepting the bids, that the orders of the respondents 3 and 4 were merely administrative and that, therefore, no Writ lies. They relied on Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, Harinath Das v. State of Assam, AIR 1958 Assam 70 and Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1961 SC 1669. In AIR 1958 Assam 70 the construction of Assam Settlement of Fisheries Rules (which were incorporated in Manipur Fishery Rules) was in question. It was held that there was nothing in rule 8 of the Assam Settlement of Fisheries Rules (corresponding to rule 39 of the Manipur Fishery Rules) which precluded the Commissioner, while examining the report of the Deputy Commissioner, sent to him for confirmation of the sale to consider various matters and to advise the Deputy Commissioner about the manner in which the settlement was to be made and the particular bidder in whose favour the settlement should be made. It was further held that it could not be said that the Commissioner in making any such recommendation should be held to have acted illegally or arbitrarily so as to give power to the High Court to interfere with his order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So, the auction of the fishery in question was not only held but accepted according to some policy of the Government and must be said to be administrative in character.
20. Though the petitioners gave up their prayer that the respondents 1 to 5 should be directed to grant the lease of the fishery in question in their favour, such a direction cannot be made. Vide Veerappa Pillai, v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192. The entire controversy between the parties is based on the terms of the contract, its alleged revocation and its alleged breach, for which the more appropriate remedy is by way of a suit and not by way of a Writ petition. Vide C. K. Achutan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1959 SC 490, Nameirakpam Pishak Singh v. Forest Officer, Manipur Forest Department, AIR 1962 Mani 47, State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash Kapur, AIR 1963 SC 507. State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685 and my judgment in Imphal Sporting Club v. All Manipur Sports Association, Imphal, (Civil Writ Petn. No. 21 of 1968 : (AIR 1969 Mani 41) on the file of this Court).
21. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that the order of the third respondent contained in Ext. A/2 imposed liability on the petitioners, who were held responsible for loss on resale in case the second petitioner did not abide by the acceptance of the bid, that the petitioners' legal right had been infringed and that, therefore, the Writ petition lies. He relied on the passages at page 384 of Vol. 3, Basu's 1967 edition of Commentary on the Constitution of India. But, this alleged legal right of the petitioners flows from the alleged breach of a right which ripened into a contractual right atter the bid was accepted by the third respondent. So, the various questions raised by the petitioners, viz., whether the second petitioner had bid on the basis of annual rental or on the basis of rental for 3 years, whether the petitioners had revoked the bid before it was accepted by the third respondent, and whether there was any mistake under which the petitioners could avoid the contract are essentially matters for determination in a Civil suit.
22. No doubt, the petitioners might be put to hardship if the amount deposited by the petitioners is forfeited and the petitioners are made liable for loss occasioned by the re-auction. But, hardship is no criterion in a Writ Petition. Vide Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd, Bombay, v. B. S. Krishnamurthi, AIR 1957 Mad 449.
23. It may be noted that the second petitioner had alone bid in the auction and there is no record to show that he had bid on behalf of the first petitioner also. So, the Joint Writ petition filed by both the petitioners is bad.
24. Thus, there are no grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and the rule is discharged. The petition is dismissed with costs. Pleader's fee Rs. 100/- one set.
Petition dismissed.
___________
Comments