ORDER H.N. Seth, J. - Sri K. K. Mathur. Conservator of Forest, Bundelkhand Circle, U. P., Jhansi, issued notices inviting tenders for the sale of Tendu leaves belonging to the Forest Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh in Jhansi, Banda and Hamirpur Forest Divisions for the year 1982. In due course amongst others, petitioners Ram Raja (Writ Petition No. 3411 of 1982), Ram Khelawan (Writ Petition No. 3412 of 1982), Brij Bhal Singh (Writ Petition No. 3414 of 1972) and Raja Bhai (Writ Petition No. 3415 of 1982) submitted their tenders for purchasing tendu leaves in Units 27 to 32 of Manikpur Range. They claim that when the tenders submitted in pursuance of the notice issued by the Conservator of Forests were opened on 4th Mar., 1982, their tenders for the respective units as indicated in the chart given below were found to be highest (For Chart see below) and were accordingly accepted. Whereas petitioners Ram Raja and Raja Bhai immediately deposited 30% of the amount tendered by them with the respondents; petitioners Ram Khelawan and Brij Bhal Singh applied for and were granted time to make the said deposit. In due course formal information about acceptance of the highest tenders of various units other than the units for which the petitioners had made the highest tenders was given to the concerned tenderers on 28th Mar., 1982, no such information was conveyed to the petitioners. In due course formal information about acceptance of the highest tenders of various units other than the units for which the petitioners had made the highest tenders was given to the concerned tenderers on 28th Mar., 1982, no such information was conveyed to the petitioners. When the petitioners approached the concerned authorities, they were informed that the State Government was contemplating making some amendments in respect of disposal of tendu leaves of the Manikpur Range by tender and that it was contemplated to give units 25 to 32 of Manikpur Range to Tarai Anusuchit Jan Jati Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Ltd. On further inquiries being made, the petitioners came across a notification issued from the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Banda on 4th Mar., 1982 purporting to convey information to general public that the State Government was considering the question of reserving the tendu leaves of units 25 to 32 of Manikpur Range in Banda Forest Division for Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhan Vikas Nigam Ltd. Accordingly the highest tenderers in respect of those units were to deposit the earnest money at their own risk and subject to the condition that in case the said units were allotted to the two corporations, their tenders would not be accepted. A copy of the said notice has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition of Ram Khelawan. Petitioner Writ Petition Number Name of Unit Unit No. Amount tendered Rs. P. Raja Ram 3411/82 Chulahi 28 1,85,992-00 Ram Khelawan 3412/82 Kalyanpur 27 1.21.111-99 Sarhat 2.41.111-99 Brij Bhal Singh 3414/82 Gharchapa 31 5,57,111-99 Alahabadya 32 1,17.111-99 Raja Bhai 3415/82 Haunia 30 1,11,787-87 2. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. They claim that the direction contained in the notice dated 4th Mar., 1982 requiring the highest tenderers of units 25 to 32 of Manikpur Range to deposit the earnest money at their own risk and that the tenders would be rejected in case it was decided to allot the tendu leaves falling in those units to Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Ltd. and Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Ltd. be quashed and the respondents be commanded to deliver tendu leaves of units 27 to 32 of Manikpur Range to the respective petitioners who were the highest tenderers in respect thereof. 3. 3. These petitions were filed on 31st Mar., 1982 when learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents appeared before the Court and contended then before orders admitting the same were passed, he should be afforded an opportunity to file counter-affidavit. He was accordingly granted two weeks' time for obtaining instructions and filing counter affidavits and in the meantime the respondents were restrained from allotting tendu leaves falling in units 27 to 32 of Manikpur Range to anybody. The respondents then filed counter-affidavits and according to them the Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Ltd. had approached the Government for allotment of 26 units of Tendu leaves of Banda Forest Division for working during the period 1982. The Conservator of Forests, Banda Circle, U. P., Jhansi, sent his recommendations to the Government for allotment of various units of the Manikpur Range (units 25 to 32) to Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam Ltd. or Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Ltd. As the Government had proposed reserving aforementioned 8 units for being allotted to the two Corporations, the tenderers were, before opening the tenders in respect of the 8 units, vide notice dated 4th Mar., 1982 informed that the question of allotting these units to the two Corporations was under consideration of the Government and that the highest tenderers may deposit the security money at their own risk. The said notice also made it clear to the tenderers that if the said units were allotted to the two corporations, the tenders in respect of those units submitted by them would not be accepted. Petitioners Ram Raja and Raja Bhai then on their own risk deposited 30% of the tendered amount as security in respect of units 28 and 30. The highest tenders in respect of the remaining units, instead of depositing the security, gave applications to the effect that they would deposit the security amount as and when required by the Department in case their tenders for the concerned units were to be considered for approval and that they were prepared to deposit the said amount in case the said units were not to be allotted to the two Corporations. The respondents claim that in these circumstances the petitioners have no such right to the tendu leaves as is claimed by them in the writ petitions. 4. The respondents claim that in these circumstances the petitioners have no such right to the tendu leaves as is claimed by them in the writ petitions. 4. Both the parties urged before us that in these cases the season for collecting tendu leaves was to commence on 1st May, 1982. If these petitions are not decided forthwith, the tendu leaves that remain undisposed of are likely to be spoiled altogether. Time being of essence, it was necessary that the petitions should be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. As the necessary affidavits had been exchanged, we heard detailed arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties on merits of the claim made by the petitioners in these four petitions and the said hearing was concluded on 30th Apr., 1982. After hearing both the parties, we came to the conclusion that the submission made by the petitioners could not be accepted and that these petitions deserved to be dismissed. 5. As it was not possible for us to dictate the reasons in support of our conclusion the same day and in the time that was left at our disposal, we pronounced our decision, and stated that the reasons for the same would follow. We, accordingly, proceed to state our reasons for holding that the claim made in all these petitions cannot be countenanced by the Court. 6. According to the petitioners, once the respondents had invited tenders for sale of tendu leaves on conditions specified in the notice issued by the Conservator of Forests and the petitioners had, after fully complying with the conditions mentioned in the tender notice, submitted their tenders which were found to be highest and they were also willing to comply with the remaining conditions mentioned in the tender notice, the respondents could not refuse to sell the tendu leaves to them specially when they had either deposited the 30% of the tendered amount as earnest money or were prepared to deposit the same in accordance with the tender notice. According to him acceptance of the earnest money paid by Ram Raja and Raja Bhai and willingness on the part of Ram Khelawan and Brij Bhal Singh to pay the same created a right in their favour and the respondents could not refuse to sell the tendu leaves to them. According to him acceptance of the earnest money paid by Ram Raja and Raja Bhai and willingness on the part of Ram Khelawan and Brij Bhal Singh to pay the same created a right in their favour and the respondents could not refuse to sell the tendu leaves to them. They also disputed the submission made by the respondents that the respondents had before opening the tenders informed the petitioners that their tenders would not be accepted in case the concerned units were eventually settled by the State Government with either of the two Corporations. This information according to them was conveyed much later and did not have any bearing on their right to claim that the tendu leaves of the concerned units be, in view of the fact that they were the highest tenderers, sold to them. The petitioners further claimed that under the rules it was not open to the respondents to, after inviting tenders for sale of tendu leaves, change their plea and sell the same to aforementioned Corporations by private negotiations and that in any case sale of tendu leaves by private negotiation to the said Corporations has the effect to contravening the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. In these cases it is not disputed that tendu leaves in respect of which the petitioners are claiming relief are tendu leaves which belong to the State Government and that the State Government is the gorwer in respect thereof as defined in S. 2 (d), U. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). Section 10 of the Adhiniyam lays down that the sale of tendu leaves in respect of which the State Government is the grower, is to be governed by any general or special order issued by it in that behalf. Section 18 of the Adhiniyam enables the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Relevant portion of R. 9, U. P. Tendu Patta Viniyaman Niyamawali, 1982, which deals with disposal of tendu leaves runs thus : - "9(1) Tendu leaves purchased or likely to be purchased from persons mentioned in sub-cls. Section 18 of the Adhiniyam enables the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Relevant portion of R. 9, U. P. Tendu Patta Viniyaman Niyamawali, 1982, which deals with disposal of tendu leaves runs thus : - "9(1) Tendu leaves purchased or likely to be purchased from persons mentioned in sub-cls. (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of clause (d) of S. 2 and collected or likely to be collected from land of the State Government or the land, for the time being, vested in and held by a Gaon Sabha and other local authority, by the State Government or by its officer or agent shall ordinarily be sold or otherwise disposed of by tender on such terms and conditions as are specified in the tender notice issued by the State Government and in the tender form. (2)....... (6) The State Government may accept or reject all or any of the tenders so received without assigning any reason therefor. Earnest money deposited shall, in case of an unsuccessful tenderer, be refunded to him, and in case of a successful tenderer, it shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (10), be adjusted towards the deposit of security required by sub-rule (11). (7 ).......... (11) (i) immediately after opening of the tenders or completion of the bids, as the case may be the successful tenderer/bidder shall furnish a security not less than 30% of the tendered/bid amount and then the Divisional Forest Officer will recommend him for appointment as purchaser to the Conservator of Forests who shall consider the recommendation and pass final orders. Any amount earlier deposited by such tenderer/bidder as earnest money or otherwise shall be adjusted against the security." 8. In consonance with the aforementioned rules cl. 14 of the tender notice provided that the Conservator of Forests, Bundelkhand Circle, U. P., Jhansi, will have a right to accept or reject any tender without assigning any reason therefor and in case any tender is rejected any amount of earnest money deposited by the tenderer shall be returned to him. Likewise condition 12 of the tender notice laid it down that on the date on which the tenders are opened the highest tenderer will have to deposit 30% of the tender amount the same day and he will have to put his signatures on the form of agreement the same day. Likewise condition 12 of the tender notice laid it down that on the date on which the tenders are opened the highest tenderer will have to deposit 30% of the tender amount the same day and he will have to put his signatures on the form of agreement the same day. Thereafter the Forest Officer shall recommend to the Conservator of Forests that the highest tenderer be appointed as the purchaser. A perusal of the tender notice as also that of R. 9, U. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamawali clearly indicates that merely because the tender given by a person is found to be the highest the respondents were not bound to accept the same and that a right to the tendu leaves accrues to the tenderer only when his tender is eventually accepted by the Conservator of Forests and he is appointed as the purchaser thereof. It is true that R. 9(1) of the Niyamawali provides that ordinarily tendu leaves of which the State Government is the grower are to be sold by tender on such terms and conditions as are specified in the tender notice issued by the Government and in the tender form; but then it also countenances disposal of such tendu leaves by the State Government in a manner otherwise than by its sale by tender. The rule, therefore, leaves a discretion with the State Government or its agents to dispose of such tendu leaves either by tender or by any other appropriate method. 9. In the case of State of U.P. v. Vijai Bahadur Singh, (Civil Appeals Nos. 920 to 925 of 1981 decided by the Supreme Court on 23rd March, 1982) : (1982 All LJ 582) there was auction of various 'forest lots' and the highest bid made by the bidders was provisionally accepted by the Forest Officer. Before the bids could finally be accepted by the Conservator of Forests, it was decided that the concerned 'forest lots' should for felling trees be entrusted to the Forest Corporation. The bidders, whose highest bids had been provisionally accepted by the forest Officer, approached the High Court claiming a writ directing the State Government to accept the highest bid and to permit the concerned contractors to work the 'forest lots'. The High Court took the view that as the Government had not given any reason for cancelling the auction, its decision was invalid. The High Court took the view that as the Government had not given any reason for cancelling the auction, its decision was invalid. It also opined that according to conditions of auction the Government was enabled to reject the highest bid only on the ground that such bid was not adequate. If the bids were not inadequate, the Government was bound to confirm the same. The High Court further found that the allocation of 'forest lots' to the Forest Corporation was, in the circumstances, arbitrary. It accordingly granted the relief claimed by the petitioners before it. Aggrieved, the Forest Corporation and the State Government went up in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that inasmuch as condition 10 expressly provided that acceptance of the bid at the time of auction was entirely provisional and subject to ratification by the competent authorities, namely, the State Government, the State Government had, for good and sufficient reasons, the right not to accept the highest bid and in appropriate cases it could even prefer a bidder other than the highest bidder. It went on to point out that the Government could, according to the demands of time and situation and in the public interest, change its policy for settling various 'forest lots' even subsequent to the auction but before its confirmation and on that basis refuse to accept the highest bid. 10. In the instant case also we find that the bids made by the highest tenderers had eventually to be approved by the Conservator of Forests who could accept or reject the same without assigning any reason therefor. Apart from it, a perusal of R. 9 shows that the Conservator of Forests had the discretion either to sell the tendu leaves by inviting tenders or by adopting some other appropriate method. Accordingly, on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that even after the tenders submitted by the petitioners had been opened, but before the same were actually accepted, by the Conservator of Forests, it was open to the respondents to, in public interest, change the policy of sale of tendu leaves and if it was so done, it would constitute good and sufficient reason for not accepting the highest tenders submitted by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that once they submitted the tenders after fully complying with the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender notice, and their tenders were found to be the highest, it was not open to the respondents to refuse to accept the same and to change the policy for the sale of tendu leaves, therefore, cannot be accepted. 11. Next question that arises for consideration is whether the action of the respondents in altering the policy of sale of tendu leaves by inviting tenders from general traders to its disposal by negotiations with the Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Ltd. can be said not to be in public interest and whether such change has resulted in discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution. It has been explained in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam Ltd. is a Government company within the meaning of S. 617 of the Companies Act. One of the objects of the Company is to work for upliftment of Scheduled Tribes (declared as Scheduled Tribe by Government of India from time to time). It is financed by the State Government; and the Board of Directors and the Managing Director thereof are the nominees of the Governor of U. P. Likewise the Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Ltd. is also a Government Company within the meaning of S. 617 of the Companies Act; and one of its primary object is to promote or advance economical, industrial and agricultural development of the Bundelkhand region which is a backward region of the State. This Company is also financed and managed by the State Government. Its Directors and Managing Directors are the nominees of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. It would thus appear that these two Corporations have been brought into existence at the instance of the State Government for the upliftment of the ruled Tribes and the development of the backward region of Bundelkhand in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The setting up of the two Corporations by the State Government thus appears to be clearly in public interest. The revenue derived by the sale proceeds of tendu leaves is also to be utilised by the State Government in public interest. The setting up of the two Corporations by the State Government thus appears to be clearly in public interest. The revenue derived by the sale proceeds of tendu leaves is also to be utilised by the State Government in public interest. Whereas any assistance rendered to the said Corporations from the State resources will subserve the public interest, availing of the State resources by other persons may not achieve such an object. Accordingly, having regard to the objects of utilisation of State resources, it is quite clear that the two Corporations, namely, Tarai Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam Ltd. on the one hand, and general traders in tendu leaves like the petitioners, on the other, belong to two different classes. Having regard to the purpose for which the said two Corporations have been set up and utilisation of the Government resources, it , cannot be said that preference given by the State Government for sale of tendu leaves to the said two corporations is either arbitrary or not in public interest. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners on this account can also not be accepted. 12. In our opinion, the petitioners have not succeeded in showing either that the action of the respondents in proposing to sell the tendu leaves of the units in question to the two Corporations instead of selling the same to the highest tenderers is contrary to any statutory provision or any provision of the Constitution. As we do not find any merit in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the' petitioners for impugning the validity of the action of the respondents in not accepting their highest bid, their petitions deserve to be dismissed and this is why we, on 30th April, 1982 passed the order dismissing these petitions.