JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - On 26th August, 1985, a notice was published for the auction of light to collect toll tax on the road bridge over the River Tones in Mohammadabad, Azamgarh. The advertisement required the intending bidders to submit along the application, amongst others: (i) No dues certificate from the District Magistrate; (ii) Solvency Certificate to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lacs), and (iii) Character certificate. 2. The petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt No. 750700 dated October 1, 1985 to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the Executive Engineer P.W.D., Azamgarh. He also filed the Solvency and No Due Certificate as were required by the advertisement, He also annexed the character certificate which mentioned: "Pramanit Kiya Jata Hai Ki Shri Shri Krishna Dutt Singh Putra Shri Mukhram Singh Niwasi Gram Mednipur Thana Suhwat Tehsil Jamaniya Jila Ghazipur Ek Sambharant Vyakti Hai, Unke Viruddha Na Kabhi Koi Dandniya Karyavahi Ki Gayi Aur Na Koi Sampreti Vicharadhin Athwa Janchadhin Hai Aur Na Koi Unke Charitra Ya Arthik Isthiti Ke Vishay, Mein Abhi Tak Aisi Baat Ya Tathya Prakash Mein Aayi Hai Jo Unke Naam Se Shasnadesh Niyamawali Tender Sharton Ya Sarvjanik Nirman Vibhag Ke Vibhagiya Niyamon Ke Anupalan Mein Virchniya Suchi Mein Panjikaran Mein Badha Ya Avrodh Utpann Karen." 3. The Executive Engineer prepared a list of eligible candidates for participating in the auction bid scheduled to be held on 4th October, 1985. According to this list, the following persons were found eligible. 1. Sri Krishna Dutta Singh (Petitioner), 2. V.B. Singh 3. Munindra Nath Upadhaya, and 4. Raghupati Singh. 4. One Banarasi Singh son of Bhagwati Singh of Azamgarh was also found eligible to participate in the auction by another office order dated 4th October, 1985. 5. Munindra Nath Upadhaya, respondent 4, filed an application before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur raising objections regarding the inclusion of the name of certain persons in the list prepared by the Executive Engineer. He made prayer for postponement of the auction also. The Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division vide letter No. 67 dated 4-10-85 asked for the comments of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Azamgarh stayed the holding of auction on 4th October, 1985. As a result of the order of the Commissioner, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Azamgarh, who was to hold the auction on 4.10.85 suspended the same. He submitted a reply to the Commissioner vide letter dated 7th October, 1985. As a result of the order of the Commissioner, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Azamgarh, who was to hold the auction on 4.10.85 suspended the same. He submitted a reply to the Commissioner vide letter dated 7th October, 1985. With regard to the petitioner, he stated: "Tahsildar Jamaniya Ki Akhya Dinank 1-8-85 Ke Adhar Per Parmanit Kiya Jata Hai Ki Shri Krishna Dutt Singh Putra Mukhram Singh Niwasi Gram Mednipur Pargana Va Tahsil Jamaniya Jila Ghazipur Ki Achal Sampati Ki Kul Anumanit Maliyat Ankan, 5,06,849.54 (Panch Lakh Chhah Hazar Aath So Unchas Rupay Chauwan Paise) Matra Hai Ukt Sbmpati Ka Vivran Nimnwat Hai." 1. Service Station Lodipur Rs. 3,47,417.87 2. Pumping Set. Mednipur Rs. 0,45,000.00 3. Agriculture land Khata No. 163 and 467 measuring (1.15.18) Share Shrikrishna Dutt Singh ? Rs. 0,07,479.17 4. 5. Agriculture land in Mednipur Khata No. 220, measuring (4.13.8) full share. Agriculture land in Tajpur Kalu, Khata No.102, measuring (2.3.13)?rd share. } Rs. 0,66,952.50 Total: Rs. 0,5,06,849.54 6. The Commissioner held that the petitioner, V.B. Singh and Banarasi Singh were not eligible to participate in the auction. Consequently he directed for the deletion of these two names out of the list of eligible persons. According to him, the only two persons eligible were Munindra Nath Upadhyaya, respondent No. 4 and Raghupati Singh, respondent No. 5. The auction subsequently was notified by the Executive Engineer on the 19th October, 1985, Munindra Nath Upadhaya was found to be the highest bidder having given the offer of Rs. 97,500/- for three years. The Executive Engineer sent the papers to the Commissioner for appropriate orders. The Commissioner, who worked in this case with speed, confirmed the auction and approved the bid of respondent No. 4, Munindra Nath Upadhyaya. 7. On 1st November, 1985, the present petition was filed in this Court challenging the deletion of the petitioner's name from the list of eligible persons by the Commissioner. The writ was not admitted but counter affidavits were invited giving direction to the Standing Counsel to that effect and further by permitting the petitioner to serve respondents 4 and 5 personally. The High Court, ordered; "Meanwhile the auction, if not confirmed so far, shall not be confirmed until 18th November, 1985.---------......" 8. In reply to the Writ Petition, two separate counter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and the other by Munindra Nath Upadhyaya, respondent No. 4. The High Court, ordered; "Meanwhile the auction, if not confirmed so far, shall not be confirmed until 18th November, 1985.---------......" 8. In reply to the Writ Petition, two separate counter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and the other by Munindra Nath Upadhyaya, respondent No. 4. To these counters, rejoinders have also been filed, 9. Since all the parties have exchanged affidavits, we are deciding this petition under Chapter 22 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court. 10. The question that was raised by the petitioner's learned counsel was that since about the application of respondent 4 for disqualifying him from participating in the auction was not communicated to him and further that no reasons were given by the Commissioner for the said purpose, the petitioner been unlawfully excluded from participating in the auction. 11. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, the reasons given for holding the petitioner to be disqualified were that the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division after taking into consideration the letter sent by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Azamgarh dated 7.10.85 and after examining the solvency certificate and character certificate submitted by the prospective bidders desirous to participate in the auction, found that Shri Krishna Dutt Singh, Sri V.B. Singh and Banarasi Singh were not suitable persons to participate in the auction. 12. We have noted above that the Executive Engineer to the queries made by the Commissioner had sent reply by the letter dated 7th October, 1985 that both the aforesaid certificates, viz., character and Solvency, were in accordance with the requirements. Respondent No. 3 produced before us the file containing the order of the Commissioner holding that the petitioner was not eligible and that the only two persons who should participate in the auction were respondents 4 and 5. The Commissioner did not pass any order himself. Under the noting of the office; Sri P.K. Chatterji, who was A.C. (A) desired the Commissioner to permit only the aforesaid two persons to participate in the auction. Under the noting, the Commissioner has signed. 13. The main thing in this case was whether the character certificate filed by the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement. Under the noting of the office; Sri P.K. Chatterji, who was A.C. (A) desired the Commissioner to permit only the aforesaid two persons to participate in the auction. Under the noting, the Commissioner has signed. 13. The main thing in this case was whether the character certificate filed by the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement. The objection of respondent No. 4 to the character certificate which prevailed with the office and the Commissioner was that the certificate mentioned the petitioner to be "Sambhrant Vyakti." The word "Sambhrant" could be used even for a person who was of a bad character and, as such, the certificate produced by the petitioner did not establish about his character. 14. Sri G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, urged that since the certificate given by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur to the petitioner was of a negative nature and not positive, as it should have been, it was rightly ignored and in the absence of a character certificate, the petitioner could not be and was rightly not permitted to participate in the auction. He showed to us a Dictionary which gives the meaning of the word "Sambhrant" as "Chakkar Khaya Hua Ghabraya Hua Bhram Mein Para" The Commissioner was also of the opinion that the word "SAMBHRANT" did not convey that the petitioner held good character. Taking this view, the Commissioner omitted to consider that the another meaning of this word is Sammanit and pratishthit. It is in this sense that the Word "Sambhrant" could be used in the certificate. If the entire character certificate would have been read, there could be no doubt that the petitioner had been certified to be a respectable person in the certificate. It could be easily possible for the Commissioner to call for a report from the District Magistrate who issued the character certificate in favour of the petitioner, as to the real meaning and sense underlying the word "SAMBHRANT", Further when the complaint of respondent No. 4 was proposed to be taken cognizance of it was only proper to afford opportunity to the petitioner whose valuable rights to participate in the bid were being adversely affected to meet the points raised in the complaint before the impugned order was passed. In the context of facts as a whole to us it appears clearly that the Commissioner was influenced by extraneous consideration in debarring the petitioner from participating in the bid. It is clear that the Commissioner was persuaded by the fantastic and frivolous objections taken by respondent No. 4 and has disqualified the petitioner on that basis- 15. In Ramana v. I.A. Authority of India, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1628 while dealing with the nature of satisfaction relating to conditions of eligibility the Supreme Court observed that the test of eligibility laid down was an objective test and not a subjective. The ground relating to the character certificate given by the Commissioner was wholly irrelevant. One cannot resist having a feeling that the petitioner had been excluded on extraneous considerations and on that account his exclusion has to be set aside. 16. It is worthy of being mentioned that even respondent No. 4 in his objection dated 4th October, 1985 had not said anything about the incorrectness of the solvency certificate. The Commissioner also had not called upon the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Azamgarh to explain as to why was the solvency certificate of the petitioner found to be in order. The officer while preparing the note to disqualify petitioner had jumped to this conclusion. The proper course could be that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the auction subject to furnishing of fresh solvency certificate. 17. It has been held in Ramana v. I.A. Authority (Supra) that the Government is not as free as an individual for selecting the recipients for its largess. The Supreme Court approved the view taken by it in earlier case reported in Erusian Export and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1975 SC 266 which was an under: "The learned Chief Justice said that when the Government is trading with the public, whereas the "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination for such transactions......The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it does not do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure." 18. The Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet-will, and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it does not do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure." 18. The Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet-will, and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases. Its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. 19. In the instant case, we find that the exclusion of the petitioner's name by the Commissioner was wholly unjustified and, as such, we quash the order dated 19th October, 1985, as well as the auction which took place on 25th October, 1985 in pursuance of the same. 20. Although there is a controversy whether the auction was confirmed after the stay order passed by this Court or being, but without going into the same we consider it appropriate to direct respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps within three weeks of the intimation of this judgment for holding of a fresh auction in accordance with U.P. Tolls Regulations, Levy and Collection Rules, 1980. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18th October, 1985 excluding the petitioner as well as the auction held on 25th October, 1985 confirmed on 27th October, 1985 are set aside. No order as to costs.