JUDGMENT 1. - These are two connected first appeals against the judgement and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, dated 19.2.1972 in a suit for specific performance of the contract. 2. The dispute relates to a shop belonging to the State of Rajasthan situate at Loh Bazar, Karauli, and fully described in the site plan attached to the plaint. This shop was auctioned on 2.2.68 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Nazool Building (Disposal by Public Auction) Rules, 1967, hereinafter called the Rules. At the auction, the highest bid of Rs. 5100/- was of the plaintiff, On the fall of the hammer, the plaintiff deposited one fourth of the amount of his bid. The bid of the plaintiff was accepted by the Chairman of the Disposal Committee and the plaintiff was accordingly informed of this acceptance. The plaintiff thereupon deposited the balance of Rs. 3800/-. The plaintiff's case is that after the acceptance of the bid and after the deposit of the entire purchase money, the Disposal Committee should have confirmed the sale and granted a certificate of sale of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Nazool Rules, 1967. Since the Disposal Committee did not grant certificate of sale of the property, the plaintiff issued a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code and after the expiry of two months, filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract and possession of the property. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the Disposal Committee disposed of the property in favour of Madariram and executed the sale deed on 21.11.69. The plaintiff therefore impleaded in the array of the defendants, Madariram's heir as by that time Madariram had expired. The suit was contested by State of Rajasthan as well as Moolchand and Radheyshyam, the son and grand-son of Madariram respectively. Several pleas were raised in defence by the defendants which need not be mentioned. The learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit and granted a decree for specific performance of the contract. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the State of Rajasthan as well as Mool Chand and Radheyshyam have preferred separate appeal. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgement, they are being disposed of together. The plaintiff-respondent inspite of service of notice has not chosen to put in appearance before this Court. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the State of Rajasthan as well as Mool Chand and Radheyshyam have preferred separate appeal. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgement, they are being disposed of together. The plaintiff-respondent inspite of service of notice has not chosen to put in appearance before this Court. 3. The only point which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is that this is a fit case where no decree for specific performance ought to have been granted. The learned counsel has invited my attention to Rule 14 of the Rules, which runs as under:- "Rule 14. Rejection of offer by State Government - The State Government reserves to itself the right to reject any bid without assigning any reason therefore or to withdraw Nazul Building from auction at any time without assigning any reason." It is contended that it is open to the State Government to reject any bid without assigning any reason and, in the present case, the very fact that the Disposal committee under the instructions of the State Government executed the sale deed in favour of Madariram shows by implication that the State has rejected the bid of the plaintiff. It is further contended that even though there is no express order of the State Government rejecting the bid of the plaintiff, the State of Rajasthan can exercise its power under Rule 14 even now and reject the bid of the plaintiff. In my opinion, the above contention is well founded Under Rule 14, the State Government has reserved its right to reject any bid without assigning any reason therefore. If that is so, the State can even now exercise its right to reject the bid before execution of the sale deed or sale certificate in accordance with the said Rules. In other words, the contract in the present case is in its very nature determinable at the will of the vendor. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, lays down that a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. Even if a decree is passed for specific performance of the contract, the defendant State of Rajasthan could exercise its power under Rule 14 of the Rules and reject the bid. As soon as the bid is rejected, the decree would become infructuous. Even if a decree is passed for specific performance of the contract, the defendant State of Rajasthan could exercise its power under Rule 14 of the Rules and reject the bid. As soon as the bid is rejected, the decree would become infructuous. In these circumstance, it will not be the proper discretion of the Court to grant a decree for specific performance of the contract. 4. I accordingly allow both the appeals, set aside the judgement and decree of the court below and dismiss the suit for specific performance of the contract and instead grant a decree against the defendant State of Rajasthan for the refund of the sale price amounting to Rs. 5100/- with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of notice, that is 7.10.63, upto the date of realisation. I pass no order as to costs in these appeals as the plaintiff has not chosen to contest appeals. *******