JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal and R.K. Gulati, JJ. - This writ petition has been filed by Mahesh Chand, Son of Ram Das, resident of Mohalla Habib Ullah Khan, Beesalpur, district Pilibhit, for mandamus directing the respondent to execute the Theka for a period of three years in accordance with auction notice, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner offered the highest bid with regard to the right of collection of toll for Rs. 4,14,000 for three years, one fourth of which was Rs. 1,03,000/-. The petitioner deposited that amount immediately after the fall of hammer. The bid was accepted subject to the approval of the Commissioner, The approval was granted for a period of one year instead of three years. The petitioner operated the lease for one and when an auction notice for the second year was advertised in the newspaper, he filed the present writ petition claiming that as his lease was for three years and that period had not expired, the respondents had no authority to advertise it for a fresh auction. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent. Amongst others, one other thing stated in paragraph 3(A) of the counter I affidavit is that the Commissioner was not' inclined to give approval to the lease of which the petitioner was the highest bidder as he was of the opinion that the auction should have been held only for one year. But when the petitioner gave his consent in writing that he was prepared to take lease for one year, the approval was accorded. The approval made by the Commissioner in favour of the petitioner was for one year and not for three years. In the rejoinder, the stand taken in the petition is reiterated. The right to realise the toll, as amended by the State Government is governed by the Indian Toll (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1974. In pursuance of that Act, Rules have been framed in 1980. These rules are know as the U.P. Tolls Regulation, Levy and Collection Rules, 1980. 4. Rule 4 (i) provides the procedure for grant of lease. The Governor or his nominee may hold auction for giving right for the collection of the toll levied on the bridge specified in the notification. 5. These rules are know as the U.P. Tolls Regulation, Levy and Collection Rules, 1980. 4. Rule 4 (i) provides the procedure for grant of lease. The Governor or his nominee may hold auction for giving right for the collection of the toll levied on the bridge specified in the notification. 5. In pursuance of Rule 4 (i) a notice of public auction was issued not respect of the toll with which we are concerned in the present case. In the auction advertised the period for which the lease was to be given was three years. The petitioner participated in the auction obviously under the impression that the lease, if he was the highest bidder, would be given to him for three years. After he had been found to be the highest bidder, he deposited one fourth of the amount which was one of the conditions of the auction. But when,the matter went to the Commissioner for approval, the commissioner reduced the period to on year. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents counsel,, Sri M.C. Dwivedi. It appears to us that when the auction was held for three years, the Commissioner could either reject the same or approve it. The I petitioner offered Rs. 4,14,000/- on the understanding that he would be permitted I to operate the lease for three years. The Commissioner having approved thebid offered by the petitioner should be deemed to have accepted the action. 7. One may not dispute the power of the Commissioner to fix the period of lease for one year if the same would have been initially advertised. But once the public auction was held forgiving of lease for three years, it is difficult to accept that the Commissioner could reduce or shorten, the period from three 1 years to one year. Several considerations weigh in the mind of the persons : 9 participating in the auction. They may be difficult to be described. If the public notice, for auction would have also provided that the Commissioner had the powers to curtail the period, the approval of the lease for one year could not be objected to. He could refuse to accord approval if he through that he same was not in the interest of revenue. Public interest is paramount consideration. This was not done. 8. He could refuse to accord approval if he through that he same was not in the interest of revenue. Public interest is paramount consideration. This was not done. 8. Reliance was placed by the respondent's counsel on the writing given by the petitioner by which he agreed to take the lease for one year. If the Commissioner did not have the power to curtail the period, the curtailment can not validity by obtaining the letter. He was not in a position to opt for something different than what he was asked to do. 9. For what we have said above, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to reconsider the question of approval to the grant of lease in the light of this decision.