A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) EVEN when no right statutory constitutional contractual or fundamental of a citizen is encroached upon or violated simply because there is an allegation of arbitrary action resulting into administrative wrong and would it be proper for the High Court to exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This question has arisen in this petition in the background of the facts that follow. ( 2 ) THE petitioner participated in in auction sale of plot situated at Gandhinagar held on 13/12/1985 The auction sale has not been confirmed and the petitioner has failed in appeal and revision before the revenue authorities. The petitioner prays that respondent Authorities be directed to confirm the auction sale and be further directed to issue allotment order for the said plot in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT is an undisputed position that there is no concluded contract between the petitioner and the Government. In this view of the matter even a civil suit would not be maintainable for the prayer that the respondent Authorities be directed to enter into a contract and thereafter be directed to specifically perform the same. Assuming that there is a concluded contract between the parties then the matter being one pertaining to contractual rights and obligations of the parties civil suit in the Court of proper forum would be the proper remedy and not petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In a similar matter the Division Bench of this High Court has taken this view. The learned single Judge of this High Court while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 2412 of 1982 held that in the matter relating to contractual rights and obligations of parties petition is not entertainable. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 32 of 1982 (Vrajlal Shivlal v. Chanduji J. Dabhi and Ors.) against the aforesaid decision this Court (M. P. Thakkar C. J. as then was and A P. Ravani J ) decided on 1/10/1982 confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and dismissed the L. P. A. While disposing of the L. P. A. the Division Bench relied upon the following decision of the Supreme Court: (1) Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1977 SC 1496 . (2) Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1368 . (2) Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1368 . In view of the aforesaid settled legal position even if there is a concluded contract (in this case admittedly there is none) petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. Therefore on both the grounds the petition being not maintainable is liable to be rejected. ( 4 ) DESPITE the aforesaid position having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the questions raised in the petition be examined little elaborately. Advertisement for holding suction is produced at Annexure B to the petition. It appears to have been issued some time in the month of August 1985 Clause 4 of instructions clearly mentions that the auction will be subject to the approval of the Collector Gandhinagar. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the Collector has not confirmed the auction sale on the ground that there was collusion between the bidders and the price fetched was not adequate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector was required to exercise powers under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and particularly under Rule 42 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules framed thereunder. The aforesaid Rule confers power on the Collector to dispose of the land for building and other purposes by auction to the highest bidder. While exercising the aforesaid statutory power the Collector cannot decide the question arbitrarily. It is submitted that in other cases auction sale of plots in favour of the highest bidder has been confirmed while in the case of the petitioner though the petitioner is the highest bidder the auction has not been confirmed. Therefore it is submitted that the Collector has acted arbitrarily and that there is discrimination against the petitioner. There is no material on record to show that in other cases the Collector found that the price fetched was not adequate and that there was collusion between the bidders and act he confirmed the auction sale. In the instant case the Collector has definitely come to the conclusion that there was confusion between the bidders and the price fetched was not adequate. The price of a particular place of land depends upon various factors including time and place complexion of bidders at a particular point of time. In the instant case the Collector has definitely come to the conclusion that there was confusion between the bidders and the price fetched was not adequate. The price of a particular place of land depends upon various factors including time and place complexion of bidders at a particular point of time. Some plot of land may not fetch the same amount if auctioned after a particular date and even just adjoining plot on account of its peculiar situation may fetch higher price or lower price depending upon various factors affecting the determination of price of a particular place of land at the relevant time. Therefore the question as to whether the Collector and the Appellate Authority have acted arbitrarily or not is a question of fact which has got to be decided by reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts of the case it cannot be said that the Collector and the Appellate Authority i. e. the Additional Chief Secretary have acted arbitrarily when they did not confirm the auction sale. ( 5 ) THE contention that the Additional Chief Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) held that there was no collusion as found by the Collector and that the Additional Chief Secretary has confirmed the order passed by the Collector on other grounds cannot be accepted. In para 12 of the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary after discussing the facts and circumstances regarding collusion it is observed to the effect that the fact however is that there was an opportunity (for collusion) the possibility of collusion having taken place cannot be ruled out. Thus by necessary implication the Additional Chief Secretary has confirmed the finding arrived at by the Collector that there was collusion between the bidders. ( 6 ) THE Additional Chief Secretary Revenue Department has given additional reason for not interfering with the order passed by the Collector and has not confirmed the auction sale. He has discussed at length the upset price being fixed an scientific basis. For this additional reason also he has thought it fit not to interfere with the order passed by the Collector and he has not passed any order directing that the auction sale in question be confirmed. He has discussed at length the upset price being fixed an scientific basis. For this additional reason also he has thought it fit not to interfere with the order passed by the Collector and he has not passed any order directing that the auction sale in question be confirmed. In above view of the matter even assuming for a moment that the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayer as stated hereinabove is maintainable on facts also it cannot be said that the orders passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Additional Chief Secretary are in any way unjust or improper and require to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision Of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana v. I. A. Authority of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 . In the aforesaid decision the principle laid down is that the State cannot grant largesse to any person by exercising its power in arbitrary manner. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the instant case the petitioner has no right either contractual statutory or constitutional to claim that the respondent-authorities be directed to enter into a contract of sale and then it may further be directed to specifically perform such contract. In the instant case the respondent-Authorities have not granted largesse to any one by not confirming the auction sale. On the contrary what the respondent-Authorities have done is that the petitioner has been prevented from getting largesse unjustly. Powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to direct that the petitioner be also granted illegitimate benefits. ( 8 ) IN learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Division Bench decision of this High Court in the case of M. S. Desai and Co. v. H. P. C. Ltd. reported in 1987 (1) GLR 375 . Therein one more category of contract has been carved out by this Court wherein the Court may exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. v. H. P. C. Ltd. reported in 1987 (1) GLR 375 . Therein one more category of contract has been carved out by this Court wherein the Court may exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever there is a concluded contract and the question as regards breach of certain guidelines issued by the Government in exercise of powers is involved this High Court has held that the Court may exercise powers under Act. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant ease there is no concluded contract between the parties. This is an admitted position. There is no question of any breach of guidelines issued by the Government or any other executive authority. Hence the reliance placed on the aforesaid decision also does not help the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this High Court in Special Civil Application No. 4727 of 1987 decided on Deember 15 1988 (A. J. Trivedi v. State of Gujarat) (Coram: M. B. Shah J. ). That was also a case With regard to auction sale held by the Government authorities which was not confirmed. In that case the order of the Special Secretary (Appeal) has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Special Secretary. However it is made clear that the question as regards the maintainability of the petition has not been decided by the Court. Moreover on facts no finding has been given as to whether exercise of power by the Collector and the Special Secretary was in any way arbitrary or unjust. Therefore this decision also does not help the petitioner. However at this stage I would like to observe that despite the decision of this High Court in this particular case if the Special Secretary or the Collector reconsiders his (their) decision this decision of the High Court will not come in the way of the authorities. If in say case where similar fact situation is available and the Government on reconsideration of the case finds that the auction sale held by it way back in the year 1985 is required to be confirmed it is for the Government to take such decision. If in say case where similar fact situation is available and the Government on reconsideration of the case finds that the auction sale held by it way back in the year 1985 is required to be confirmed it is for the Government to take such decision. Particularly having regard to the facts of this case I do not think that it would be proper for this Court to remand the matter to the Secretary and direct him to reconsider the matter. The main reason for arriving at this decision is that even after remand if the Collector or the Secretary does not accede to the request made by the petitioner thereafter also petition does not become maintainable. As held hereinabove such petition is not maintainable at all. On the other hand even without remand if the Secretary of the Collector or any other Government authority on its own or at the instance of the petitioner wishes to reconsider the entire matter the decision of this Court does not come in the way of the Collector or any other authority. Therefore remand of the matter would be an exercise in futility. It is an established principle of 18w that the Court does not issue its writ which would result in futility. Therefore also the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4727 of 1987 does not help the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard before taking decision not to confirm the auction sale. Be it noted that whether or not to confirm the auction sale is a matter solely within the administrative sphere of the Collector. When he (Collector) decides this particular aspect in effect he takes a decision on behalf of the State as to whether the State should enter into a contract of sale or not. When an authorized officer of the State takes such decision he is not required to afford an opportunity of being heard to the party who has made the offer for purchase. Whether or not to enter into contract of sale in a matter to be decided by a party to the contract. It does not depend upon the submissions that may be made by another party to the contract. Whether or not to enter into contract of sale in a matter to be decided by a party to the contract. It does not depend upon the submissions that may be made by another party to the contract. At any rate another party to the contract cannot claim any right of making and of being heard. Therefore there was no aced whatsoever for the Collector to afford an opportunity of being heard to the highest bidder in the auction. ( 11 ) IT may be assumed that there is some substance in the allegation made by the petitioner that the Collector hag not confirmed the auction on account of some irrelevant and extraneous grounds and that there is some lapse on the part of the Collector and also on the part of the Additional Chief Secretary. Then also it would not be wise gad proper for this High Court to exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases. The powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution are undoubtedly unlimited. Whenever the High Court finds that any person within its territories is guilty of doing an act which is not anthorised by law or which is violative of fundamental rights of citizens the High Court may exercise its power and see that the fundamental rights of the citizens are not violated Even though the powers of the High Court are unlimited there are certain inherent limitations which have got to be recognised. For each and every administrative lapse which may not result into violation of fundamental rights of citizens or any other right of citizens the prospect of judicial review cannot be held out. The High Court cannot convert itself into a crusader for correcting each and every administrative wrong. This is not the legitimate function of the High Court The legitimate function of the judiciary is not protect fundamental and other rights of the citizens against unjust and unlawful State actions. The High Court may even exercise power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of certain administrative action directly or indirectly not affecting the petitioner himself but such exercise of powers should have the constitutional perspective in view. The High Court may even exercise power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of certain administrative action directly or indirectly not affecting the petitioner himself but such exercise of powers should have the constitutional perspective in view. The order that may be passed by the High Court in exercise of such powers should be for the fulfilment of the constitutional objectives sad not for the purpose of individual private gains. Viewed from this angle also the petition cannot be entertained. ( 12 ) IN this connection reference may be made to the following passage from de Smiths Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1980 edition page 1):"judicial review of administrative action is inevitably sporadic and peripheral. The administrative process is not and cannot be. a succession of judicial controversies. Public authorities are set up to govern and administer and if their every act or decision were to be reviewable on unrestricted grounds by an independent judicial body the business of administration could be brought to a standstill. The prospect of judicial relief cannot be held out to every person whose interests may be adversely aly affected by administrative action". In above view of the matter even assuming for a moment that there is some administrative wrong or lapse on the part of the Collector ant the Additional Chief Secretary then they did not confirm the auctionsale the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. ( 13 ) NO other contention is raised. There is no substance in the petition. Hence rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. (REST of the Judgment is not material for the Reports.)RULE discharged. .