JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and as such are being decided together. Tenders were invited by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dudhi Mirzapur for disposal of tendu leaves for the year 1978 as contemplated by sub-rule (2) of R. 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Tendu Patta(Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam (Niyamawali), 1972 I hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). Mohd. Israil, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 227 of 1979 submitted his tenders in regard to Unit Nos. 12 and 13. Likewise tenders were invited for the year 1979 and Javed Ahmad, petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 515 of 1979 submitted his tender in regard to Unit No. 59. The tender of Mohd. Israil in regard to Unit No. 12 was rejected, whereas it was accepted in regard to Unit No. 13. Tender of Javed Ahmad in regard to Unit No. 59 was also-accepted. Subsequently the petitioners of these two writ petitions were required to furnish security and execute an agreement as contemplated by sub-rules (10) and (11) of the Rule on the ground that the petitioners had been appointed purchasers consequent upon their tenders being accepted. They were also informed that in the event of failure to furnish security and execute an agreement, fresh tenders may be invited and the petitioners will he liable to the loss suffered by the State Government, if any. Neither of the two petitioners either furnished security or executed the agreement as contemplated by sub-rules (10) and (11) of the Rule. Subsequently, the two units mentioned above were auctioned and the shortfall was sought to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. It is these proceedings of the recovery of the shortfall as arrears of land revenue which are sought to be quashed in these writ petitions 2. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed inasmuch as on the facts of these two cases the short fall could not be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. As seen above the tenders were invited under sub-rule(2) of R. 9 of the Rules Sub-rule 15) contemplates that each tender shall he accompanied with the deposit of earnest money equal to the amount specified in the tender notice. As seen above the tenders were invited under sub-rule(2) of R. 9 of the Rules Sub-rule 15) contemplates that each tender shall he accompanied with the deposit of earnest money equal to the amount specified in the tender notice. Sub- rule (G) of R. 9 contemplates that the State Government may accept or reject all or any of the tenders so received without assigning any reason therefor. It is further provided that earnest money deposited shall, in case of an unsuccessful tenderer, be refunded to him, and in case of a successful tender, it shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (10), be adjusted towards the deposit of security required by sub-rule (11). For purposes of these two cases sub- rule (10) and CL (i) of sub- rule (11) of R. 9 alone are relevant and not other clauses of the said sub-rule. Sub-rules (10) and (11)(i) read as follows: "(10). The purchaser on being so appointed shall execute an agreement in Form 'M or Form' R' as the case may he, within 15 days of the receipt of the order of appointment, failing which the appointment shall he liable to be cancelled and on such cancellation, the amount deposited as earnest money shall be forfeited. in addition, the purchaser whose appointment has been cancelled shall bear the loss, if any, suffered by the State Government in the disposal of tendu leaves of the unit and this loss be recoverable from him or his surety as arrears of land revenue. (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/ kidder as earnest money or otherwise shall he adjusted against the security." On a bare perusal of these sub rules it is apparent that only after the successful tenderer, namely, whose tender has been accepted furnishes the security contemplated by sub- rule( 11) that the Divisional Forest Officer has been authorised to recommend the successful tenderer for appointment as purchaser to the Conservator of Forest who is to consider the recommendation and pass final-orders. If on the basis of the recommendation made by the Divisional Forest Officer the highest purchaser is appointed purchaser under sub-rule (9) of R. 9, which contemplates that the successful tenderer shall be appointed as purchaser in the particular unit, he is under obligation to execute within 15 days of the receipt of the order of appointment an agreement as contemplated by sub- rule (10) of R. 9 and it is only on failure to execute the said agreement that the appointment is liable to be cancelled. After the appointment has been cancelled it is open to the Divisional Forest Officer to either invite fresh tender or hold auction for the disposal of the Tendu leaves in respect of the Unit concerned. 3. In the instant cases, as seen above, neither of the petitioners had furnished the security as contemplated by sub-rule (11) of Rule 9 of the Rules. Consequently the Divisional Forest Officer was not competent to make any recommendation to the Conservator of Forest to appoint the petitioners as purchasers and in the absence of any such recommendation the petitioners could not be appointed purchasers. It is again clear on it bare perusal of sub-rule ( 10) that it is only after a person had been appointed purchaser that he was under an obligation to execute an agreement contemplated by the said sub-rule. When sub-rule (10) talks of successful tenderer being appointed as purchaser it obviously contemplates a valid appointment under the Rules In Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare, AIR 1975 SC 915 it was held. "A century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) Ch D 426 Jessel M.R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way. the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time. It was applied by the Privy Council. in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor. 63 Ind App 372: AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) and later by this Court in several cases, Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. (1954) SCR 1098 : AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 Crl LJ 910, Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1962) SCR 662 : AIR 1961 SC 1527 : 1961(2) Crl LJ 705 to a Magistrate making a record under Ss.. 164 and 364 of the Criminal P. C. 1898". 4. On the tender of the petitioners being accepted it is true that a contract came into being in the sense of the offer of the petitioners being accepted by the Government and if there was it breach of contract the Government may be entitled under the general law for such relief as may be permissible for breach of contract. If however, it wanted to take recourse to the provisions of the Rules strict compliance of the requirement of the Rules was necessary. In the instant cases neither of the petitioners had furnished the security as contemplated by sub-rule (II) of R. 9. Consequently, the recommendation, if any, made by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Conservator of Forest for appointment of the petitioners as purchasers was contrary to the mandatory requirement of the said sub-rule. In this connection emphasis may he placed on the words "and then" used in CL (i) of sub-rule (11). On the same ground the appointment, if any. of the petitioners as purchasers under sub-rule (9) was also invalid. When the petitioners had not been validly appointed as purchasers they were under no obligation to execute the agreement contemplated by sub- rule( 10) of the Rules nor could they he visited with the consequences of failure to execute an agreement prescribed under the said sub- rule (10) and it is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that the impugned recovery proceedings cannot be sustained. 5. In the result each of the two writ petitions is allowed and the impugned recovery proceedings are quashed In the circumstances of the case, however, parties shall bear their own costs.