JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. -This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for recovery oi Rs. 1,150/- being the balance amount said to be due for the Ekka-Tonga stand contract for the year 1961-62 in the Collect-orate Compound at Mainpuri. The defendant was the highest bidder at an auction held on 6th April 1961 for the said contract. His bid was Rs. 1,250/-. The bid was accepted by the Collector and the defendant was required to deposit l/4th of the contract amount bid by him. He deposited Rs. 100/- and applied for time to deposit the balance. The defendant did not, however, pay any part of the balance contract money in spite of demands; hence the suit. 2. The defence was that the plaintiff had no right to enter into the contract or to auction the same and that the legal formalities for the sale of the contract had not been completed and further that at the time of the auction the defendant had been assured that proper arrangements will be made by the plaintiff to help the defendant in realising fees from Ekka-Tonga using the stand, but, on account of the public agitation, the defendant could recover nothing and he applied to Collector either to make adequate arrangement through the police for helping him in realising the fees or to cancel the contract and refund the amount of Rs. 100/- deposited by him, but no reply was received to his application, nor were any steps taken to complete the contract in writing by any authority of the defendant. The defendant further alleged that a notice dated 22nd June, 1961 was received from the Collector informing him that if the l/4th amount of the contract money was not paid within three days, the contract would be cancelled, but the defendant did not deposit the l/4th amount and the contract must be deemed to have been cancelled and that the defendant is not liable to pay anything. The defendant further alleged that he never recovered any money from Ekka-Tongawalas and the plaintiffs allegation to the contrary was incorrect. 3. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues in the case. It found on issue No. 1 that the plaintiff had the right to auction the Theka for Ekka-Tonga stand on issues Nos. The defendant further alleged that he never recovered any money from Ekka-Tongawalas and the plaintiffs allegation to the contrary was incorrect. 3. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues in the case. It found on issue No. 1 that the plaintiff had the right to auction the Theka for Ekka-Tonga stand on issues Nos. 2 and 6, that no assurance was given to the defendant that the plaintiff would assist in realisation of the dues from Ekka-Tongawalas and that there was no failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform any of the terms of the contract; on issues Nos. 3 and 5 that the defendant did realise fees from Ekka-Tongawalas and continued to do so throughout; on issue No. 4 that the failure of the defendant to pay the balance of the th amount within three days and the Col lectors letter dated 22nd June, 1961 did not amount a revocation of the contract; on issue No. 7 that the suit was not barred by limitation; and on issues Nos. 8 and 9 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 1,150/- as claimed by it. 4. On appeal by the defendant in the district court, the first question raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant was that there was no concluded contract between the parties. On this, the lower appellate court held that it could not be said that there was no contract between the parties for want of a formal agreement in writing. The next question raised before the lower appellate court was that the contract did not come into existence as the defendant-appellant failed to pay l/4th amount of the contract money. The lower appellate court answered this question also against the defendant-appellant, by holding that the contract did not stand repudiated on account of the defendants failure to pay the balance of the l/4th amount of the contract money. It was next contended by the defendant-appellant before the lower appellate court that he did not realise any- thing from the Ekka-Tongawvalas under that contract. On an appraisal of the evidence on the record, the lower appellate court found that the defendant-appellant did make realisations from Ekka-Tonga-walas. The result was that the decree of the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on the record, the lower appellate court found that the defendant-appellant did make realisations from Ekka-Tonga-walas. The result was that the decree of the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court. 5. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant in this second appeal is that there could be no contract between the plaintiff, State of Uttar Pradesh, on the one hand and the defendant-appellant on the other, unless there was a formal contract in writing in the manner required by Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution. 6. It is not disputed that a formal contract was not executed in the present case. The bidding took place on 6th April 1961. The defendant signed the bid-sheet. It was put up before the Collector on 7th April 1961, who endorsed thereunder the following: "Highest bid of rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty is accepted. Sd. Illegible, 7-4-61." It is indisputable that the Collector was authorised to enter into the contract in question on behalf of the Plaintiff-State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the plaintiff-respondents case the endorsement of acceptance on the bid by the Collector in writing, which was already signed by the defendant-appellant, was sufficient compliance of the requirements of Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution. The lower appellate court has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.C. Mohindra v. Municipal Board Saharanpur, (1969) 1 SCC 56 , in this context more particularly the following observations of the Supreme Court (at page 59):- "In our opinion the list of bids and the Resolution No. 26, D/- April 8. 1950 Ex. 18, constituted a contract in writing within the meaning of Section 97 of the Act. It was held by this Court in Union of India v. Rallia Ram: (1964) 3 SCR 164 (173) that for the purposes of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, a valid contract could be spelt out of correspondence. It seems to us that similarly it is not necessary for the purpose of complying with S. 97 of the Act that the contract should be contained in one document signed by both the parties." 7. It seems to us that similarly it is not necessary for the purpose of complying with S. 97 of the Act that the contract should be contained in one document signed by both the parties." 7. It cannot be disputed that the Collector was acting on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh when he accepted the bid in question and that he had the requisite authority to do so, and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and more particularly that in the case of Union of India v. Rallia Ram (1964) 3 SCR 164 (173), it is impossible to say that a valid contract between the parties did not come into existence in the present case. 8. Even otherwise, the defendant could not lawfully resist this suit. Taking the advantage of the contract, he realised fees from Ekka-Tongawalas who used the Ekka-Tonga stand at the Collectorate compound, Mainpuri, during the period in question. He paid Rs. 100/- and took time for payment of even the balance of l/4th amount of the contract money. The fact remains that the Collector did not revoke the contract. The contract was already complete by the acceptance of bid in spite of the fact that it was not accompanied by the usual deposit of l/4th amount of the bid by way of earnest. Since the matter does not appear to have been governed by any statutory rules, it was open to the Collector not to have insisted on payment of any earnest money. At any rate, having realised fees from Ekka-Tonga Walas under the contract throughout the year, the defendant cannot be heard to say that he will not pay the amount of the contract money, for he must restore the benefit derived by him even if the contract was void. The defendant-appellants case that he did not realise any fees from Ekka-Tongawalas has been dis-believed by the two courts below on an appraisal of the evidence on the record. That is a finding of fact, and I have no reason not to accept it. It has not been shown that the realisations made by the defendant were less than the amount claimed by the plaintiff-respondent. 9. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.