JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16-10-1984 (Annexure 14) by which the State Government directed the Commissioner to invite fresh tenders for settlement of Karmaini Ghat Ferry in the district of Gorakhpur. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the part of the order dated 16-10-1984 as also for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner to operate the ferry. 2. Short of details the facts are these. There is a public ferry at Kamaini Ghat across the River Rapti in the district of Gorakhpur on Basti - Mahdhawal - Kaptanganj - Tamkuhi Road. As contemplated by section 4 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (for. short the Act) this ferry is managed by the Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur. In the year 1979, however, the management of the ferry was taken over by the State Government. The immediate superintendence of the ferry vested in the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, P.W.D., Gorakhpur as provided under S. 6 of the Act. This public ferry was settled on 30-8-1982. Tenders were invited by the' Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, Respondent 2, but all the tenders were, however, rejected. The Commissioner, however, passed an order extending the period of lease in favour of Sri .Gorakhnath Upadhya, the erstwhile lessee, for a period of two months more. The fresh tenders were invited by the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, P.W.D., Gorakhpur, respondent 3 by 30-10-1982. The Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, however, rejected all the tenders and extended the period of lease of Sri Upadhya for a further period of two months: Again Respondent No.3 invited tenders for the lease of the tolls for 25-1-1983. The petitioner has offered a sum& of Rs. 1,21,121.00 per annum. The next offer of the tender was of Sri Gorakhnath Upadhya for a sum of Rs. 76,555.00 per annum. The offer of the petitioner being the highest and being valid in all respects, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, accepted it on 19-1-1983. He communicated his acceptance to the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, P.W.D. Gorakhpur,. vide his letter dated 31-1 1983 (Annexure 1'). He categorically stated that the petitioner's tender being highest was accepted for a period of three years. The offer of the petitioner being the highest and being valid in all respects, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, accepted it on 19-1-1983. He communicated his acceptance to the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, P.W.D. Gorakhpur,. vide his letter dated 31-1 1983 (Annexure 1'). He categorically stated that the petitioner's tender being highest was accepted for a period of three years. Respondent 3 vide letter dated 1-2-83 (Annexure 2') informed the petitioner that his offer has been accepted and the petitioner was directed to appear in his office and to put signatures on the lease deed and that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 25,300/- and take charge of the ferry. Even though the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,300/- but for the sake of precaution he deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 1-2-83 with the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, P.W.D., Gorakhpur. He further deposited on 2-2-1983 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as the first monthly instalment for the month of February, 1983. On 5-2-1983 the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur put his signatures in .favour of the petitioner and executed the lease/agreement. The petitioner also put his signatures. The Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer also put their signatures. In view of these facts the entire formalities were completed for the lease deed on 5-2-1983. In all the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 45,300/-. The charge of the ferry was to be handed over to the petitioner for its operation. 3. On 7-2-1983 the petitioner requested respondent 3 to hand over the charge of the ferry in pursuance of the lease/agreement dated 5-2-1983. The Executive Engineer, however, expressed his inability as a radiogram dated 5-2-1983 had been received from the Joint Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U. P. addressed to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. By this radiogram the entire records relating to the auction of tolls of the ferry were sent for and necessary orders would be passed by State Government and further proceedings were stayed (Vide Annexure 9'). On inquiry the petitioner was told from the office of the Commissioner and the Executive Engineer that certain persons had sent some written complaints. The Commissioner also wrote a letter to the Joint Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U. P. on 9-2-1983 (Annexure'10'). On inquiry the petitioner was told from the office of the Commissioner and the Executive Engineer that certain persons had sent some written complaints. The Commissioner also wrote a letter to the Joint Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U. P. on 9-2-1983 (Annexure'10'). The petitioner had also made a representation to the Joint Secretary, P.W.D. on 10-2-1983 with a prayer that charge of the ferry may be handed over to him forthwith. He made subsequent representations also. He even made a representation to the Minister concerned. By order dated 16-10-1984 (Annexure 14') the State Government cancelled the tender offered by the petitioner as also by Sri Gorakh Nath Upadhya. The direction was given to invite tenders afresh. In this impugned order, however, no reasons were given as to why the tender offered by the petitioner, although being highest, was rejected even though the petitioner-complied with all the conditions and formalities and even the lease/agreement was_ also executed and signatures of the petitioner, Commissioner, Executive Engineer and even the Assistant Engineer were made. It is this impugned order dated 16-10-1984 (Annexure 14') which has been challenged by the present writ petition. 4. We have heard Sri V. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It has been urged by Sri Misra that under S. 8 of the Act the Commissioner has been given the power for the approval of the tenders by public auction if the period of lease is for three years or five years and in case the settlement was to be made by any other process for any other term, the previous sanction of the State Government should have been obtained before. inviting tenders or adopting any other procedure, but that was not done. The authority delegated to the Commissioner under S. 8 of the Act was complete and unless otherwise revoked earlier, the State Government has no authority or power to cancel the highest tender offered by the petitioner and having also been accepted. It was further urged that once the offer was accepted it became a complete contract and did not remain an inchoate contract, hence there was no power with the Government to cancel the lease executed in favour of the petitioner and also to cancel the petitioner's highest tender. It was further urged that once the offer was accepted it became a complete contract and did not remain an inchoate contract, hence there was no power with the Government to cancel the lease executed in favour of the petitioner and also to cancel the petitioner's highest tender. To appreciate the controversy involved, the relevant statutory provisions of Section 8 of the Act are set out below : "8. Letting ferry tolls by auction : - The tolls of any public ferry may, from time to time, be let by public auction for a term not exceeding five years with the approval of the Commissioner, or by public auction, or otherwise than by public auction, for any term with the previous sanction of the State Government. The lessee shall conform to the rules made under this Act for the management and control of the ferry, and may be called upon by the officer in whom the immediate superintendence of the ferry is vested, or, if the ferry is managed by a municipal or other public body under S. 7 or S. 7A, then by that body, to give such security for his good conduct and for the punctual payment of the rent as the officer or body, as the case may be, thinks fit. When the tolls are put up to public auction, the said officer or body, as the case may be, or the officer conducting the sale on his or its behalf may, for reasons recorded in writing, refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder, and may accept any other bid, or may withdraw the tolls from auction." 5. Under the aforesaid statutory provisions it was clear that any public ferry may be let out by public auction with the approval of the Commissioner or otherwise with the previous sanction of the State Government. In case the previous sanction of the State Government was to be obtained it should have been obtained before the tenders were invited. In case the tenders were invited for the lease to be granted for a period of three years it was with the approval of the Commissioner and the State Government does not come in picture. In case the previous sanction of the State Government was to be obtained it should have been obtained before the tenders were invited. In case the tenders were invited for the lease to be granted for a period of three years it was with the approval of the Commissioner and the State Government does not come in picture. But in the instant case the State Government by the aforesaid radiogram directed that the entire papers may be sent for and further proceedings may be stayed even prior to that the lease/agreement had already been executed substantially inasmuch as the petitioner, Commissioner and the Executive Engineer and even the Assistant Engineer had put their signatures thereon. Hence the offer of the petitioner was accepted by the Commissioner and the Executive Engineer. It became a complete contract and ceased to remain inchoate contract. Thus the State Government has no authority to cancel the same unless it wanted to make the settlement by some other procedure other than by public auction, but the same was not the case here. In the instant case tenders have again been directed to be invited and the highest tender of the petitioner has been cancelled even without assigning any reason. Whereas the third clause of S. 8 of the requires that in case the tolls are put to public auction and the offer of the highest tender was not to be accepted in that event reasons must have been recorded in writing. But in the instant case no reasons whatsoever have been recorded by the State Government. 6. In case the State Government wanted to cancel the lease for that purpose notice in writing must have been given to the lessee petitioner with the intention to cancel the lease as provided in section 10 of the Act. But no such procedure was adopted nor any such notice was given to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner's offer having been accepted and having culminated in the lease could not be cancelled,by the State Government nor fresh tenders could be invited. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order, The learned Standing Counsel also tried to urge that as the petitioner was not prepared to deposit sufficient stamp duty, hence the tender has been cancelled and the offer even though accepted has to be cancelled. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order, The learned Standing Counsel also tried to urge that as the petitioner was not prepared to deposit sufficient stamp duty, hence the tender has been cancelled and the offer even though accepted has to be cancelled. But we are afraid that there is nothing in the impugned order (Annexure `14') to indicate the same. Further even there is nothing in the impugned order as to why the highest bid offered by the petitioner was sought to be cancelled. There is nothing to indicate even that the order has been passed for the enhancement of the revenue of the State. The impugned order is arbitrary with no reasons at all. The order even does not safeguard the interest of the State. The Government once having delegated the powers to the Commissioner who has approved the highest bid offered by the petitioner, it was not open to the State Government to cancel the same without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 8. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be 'sustained. 9. In the result, the present petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 16-10-1984 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to handover the possession of the public ferry in question to the petitioner forthwith. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to call upon the appellants to comply with the other formalities in this connection, if any. The respondents are further directed not to interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on the tolls of the public ferry in question. The petitioner shall also be entitled to his costs.