Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the highest bidder of lot No. 41 at the auction of scrap materials held in pursuance of Ex. P2 on 28-6-1957. Ext. P2, the "auction notice" dated 11-5-1957, was issued by the 2nd respondent, the Director of Transport, Trivandrum. The 1st respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government and the 3rd, the Works Manager. State Transport Central Works, Trivandrum. 2. Para.5 of Ext. P2 reads as follows: "The highest bid will normally be accepted, but the undersigned reserves the right to accept, reject or cancel the whole or any portion of the auction without assigning reasons therefor". and Para.7 : "The successful bidders will be required to remit the bid amount in full with sales tax at the spot as soon as the auction is over an confirmed. The successful bidder must remove the materials within seven days of the date of auction failing which ground rent at the rate of Rs. 5 per day per lot will have to be paid". 3. By Ex. P1, an Official Memorandum of the 3rd respondent dated the 29th June 1957 the petitioner was informed that the sale had been cancelled: "This is to inform you that the auction conducted on 28-6-1957 has been cancelled. The amount remitted by you in this Office towards the bid amount and sales tax will be refunded on any day during working hours". The petitioner's contention is that the title to the goods comprised in lot No. 41 passed to him on the date of the auction itself, and that the Government had no right to cancel the sale or take steps for a fresh auction as proposed in the notice Ext. P5 dated 2 71957. His contention is stated as follows in Para.8, 9 and 12 of the affidavit in support of the petition: "8. The auction was duly confirmed and I duly paid the bid amount and also the Sales tax. The receipts obtained by me for payment of the bid amount is produced herewith and is marked as Ext. P3. The receipt obtained by me for payment of the Sales Tax is also produced herewith and is marked as Ext. P4. 9. As per para 7 of auction notice contained in Ext. The receipts obtained by me for payment of the bid amount is produced herewith and is marked as Ext. P3. The receipt obtained by me for payment of the Sales Tax is also produced herewith and is marked as Ext. P4. 9. As per para 7 of auction notice contained in Ext. P2 the sale amount and sales tax is paid and received only after the sale is confirmed on the spot. Thereafter the property in the goods covered by lot No. 41 is my property. The 1st respondent has no right over the property after the bid is accepted and confirmed. The State has a right of re-auction only in cases where there was any failure to fulfil any of the conditions of the auction. 12. The 3rd respondent has no power to cancel the auction sale dated 28-6-1957 of lot No. 41. It is ultra vires of his powers. It involves an infringement of my fundamental rights under Art.19 and 31 of the Constitution, because after the confirmation of sale ana payment and acceptance of sale amount, the property in goods of lot No. 41 is mine and the State has no rights over the same". Ext. P3 states that the amount was received "on account of bid amount of the auction" and Ext. P4 that the amount was received "on account of sales tax for the bid amount". The words "price" or sale price" do not occur in those receipts. 4. A sale by auction is not different from any other contract of sale. The highest bid constitutes the offer and the fall of the hammer or other customary announcement, the acceptance thereof. There is nothing, however, to prevent the acceptance being made dependent on the fulfillment of a condition subsequent, as for example, confirmation by the principal or higher authority in the case of sales conducted by an agent or servant (see XXIX Indian Cases 12). It is axiomatic that in such cases the contract is concluded and the title passes only when the condition subsequent is satisfied. 5. The auction on 28-6-1957 was conducted not by the 2nd respondent but by a Mechanical Engineer who has not been impleaded as a respondent in this petition. The instructions, if any, given to him by the 2nd respondent are also not available in the papers produced before me. 6. 5. The auction on 28-6-1957 was conducted not by the 2nd respondent but by a Mechanical Engineer who has not been impleaded as a respondent in this petition. The instructions, if any, given to him by the 2nd respondent are also not available in the papers produced before me. 6. According to the 2nd respondent he alone had the right to confirm the auction. His specific statement in Para.7 of his affidavit dated 18-7-1957 is: "As a matter of fact, the auction was never confirmed by me and I am the only person competent to confirm the same". 7. Whether the Mechanical Engineer who conducted the auction had the right to confirm the sale and whether he, as a matter of fact, did so, are disputed questions of fact which it is impossible to resolve in proceedings like this or on the affidavits and papers before me. It follows that I must leave the petitioner to seek his remedies, if any, by an ordinary suit in the appropriate court. 8. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 9. I make it clear that nothing herein contained should in any way affect the parties and their contentions if and when a suit is filed.