Judgment 1. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated 24-3-1982 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the bid held on 28-2-1982 wherein the petitioner became a successful bidder was cancelled. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents Nos.2 to 6 to deliver possession of the Bairgania Hat to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. A Hat commonly known as Bairgania Hat at all material times was and still is being held on a giarmazarua malik land belonging to the ex landlord. The said Bazar however has vested in the State of Bihar after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 4. It is alleged that the aforementioned Bazar was taken over by Bakagania Bazar Agricultural Produce Market Committee on subsidy basis. 5. The petitioner has further asserted that for the year 1980-81 the said Bazar was settled in favour of the petitioner and he collected tolls during the said period. Similarly for the year 1981-82 also the petitioner became the highest bidder and took settlement of the said Bazar. However by a notice dated 21-9-82 the respondents Nos.1 and 2 called for tenders from the eligible candidates. The petitioner along with various other persons took part in the said bid. The petitioners offer of Rs. 37,700.00 being the highest amount. The same was accepted and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 directed the petitioner to deposit half of the bid amount. Pursuant thereto the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 on 28-2-1982 and further deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 8,850.00 on 1-3-82. 6. The petitioner in para 12 of the writ petition has alleged as follows :- "That after depositing the aforesaid amount, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 to issue parwans in his favour but the respondent No.3 demanded Rs. 4,000.00 for the purpose. The petitioner refused to oblige the respondent No.3 which caused great annoyance to him." 7. The petitioner has asserted that as he did not comply with the request aforementioned of the respondent No.3 he prevailed over the respondent No.2 and obtained an order for fresh bid wherefor the impugned notice dated 24-3-1982 was issued. 4,000.00 for the purpose. The petitioner refused to oblige the respondent No.3 which caused great annoyance to him." 7. The petitioner has asserted that as he did not comply with the request aforementioned of the respondent No.3 he prevailed over the respondent No.2 and obtained an order for fresh bid wherefor the impugned notice dated 24-3-1982 was issued. The petitioner has further asserted that he filed a petition on 27-3-82 before the Collector, Sitamarhi challenging the action of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the Collector, Sitamarhi stayed the holding of the fresh bid by an order dated 27-3-1982. According to the petitioner the said order of stay was duly communicated to the office of the respondent No.2 on 28-3-82 but in spite thereof the respondent No.3 held bid and knocked down the same. The petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the Collector by filing an application on 30th March, 1982. The petitioner further filed an application before the respondent No. 4 (Regional Director, Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bairagania, District Sitamarhi) and also filed an application before the respondent No. 5 (Chairman, Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Patna) on 1-4-1982. By an order dated 15-4-1982 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 directed the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to act in accordance with the order and direction of the Collector as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 8. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. Another counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.8. In the said counter affidavits it has been contended that in the matter of settlement of Hat the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board has laid down certain norms for being followed by the Market Committees and according to the said guidelines the Hats are settled by the Executive Committee, Bairgania. It has further been contended therein that the said Executive Committee in a meeting held that the bid amount offered by the petitioner was very low and as such it took a decision on that very date to ask the petitioner to deposit half of the bid money with a condition that if any higher offer is made by any other person the same would be offered to him. According to the aforementioned respondents in that view of the matter even a provisional parwana was not issued to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that some persons have also made a complaint for holding bid on a Sunday and that too outside the headquarters and in that view of the matter the Executive Sub-Committee issued notice for holding bid on 29-3-82. According to the respondents a higher amount, namely, Rs. 42,000.00 was offered by the respondent No.8. The said respondents have further asserted that they were not aware of any order of stay passed by the Collector. It has further been asserted that Collector after taking into consideration the case of the petitioner by an order dated 11-5-1982 rejected the case of the petitioner and found that the action on the part of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was not mala fide. The said order dated 11-5-82 is contained in Annexure-D to the said counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. It is further stated that even respondent No.4 held an enquiry into the matter and submitted a report to the respondent No.6 (Director) Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Patna) stating therein that the settlement of hat by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 on respondent No.8 was proper and legal. A copy of the said report is contained in Annexure-G to the aforementioned counter affidavit. It has further been asserted that even the higher officer, namely, the respondent No.6 was also satisfied that the offer made in favour of the respondent No.8 was proper and legal. 9. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions :- (a) According to the learned counsel the bid could not have been cancelled because no power in that respect was reserved into the Market Committee in terms of Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (b) He further brought my attention to the fact that such power has expressly been reserved only in the impugned notice as contained in Annexure-3 thereto. (c) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has acquired a right to hold the hat in view of the fact that his bid was accepted. (d) the learned counsel has further submitted that before cancelling the offer of the petitioner he has neither been given any notice to show-cause nor any reason has been assigned therefor. (c) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has acquired a right to hold the hat in view of the fact that his bid was accepted. (d) the learned counsel has further submitted that before cancelling the offer of the petitioner he has neither been given any notice to show-cause nor any reason has been assigned therefor. (e) Learned counsel has further submitted that the action on the part of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was mala fide in view of the fact that the fresh offer was invited although the same was stayed by the Collector, Sitamarhi. (f) Learned caused further submitted with reference to paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the action on the part of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was mala fide and in any event the same was arbitrary. 10. Learned counsel in this connection has relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty V/s. International Airport Authority of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Shri Harminder Singh Arora V/s. Union of India reported in AIR 1986 SC 1527 . 11. Mr. Sushil Chandra Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 8 on the other hand, submitted that the authorities had every right to issue the impugned notice. According to the learned counsel the petitioner had no legal right in as much as no agreement was executed in his favour. It was further pointed out that there had been no nalice on the part of the respondent No. 3 as after an enquiry even the Collector, Sitamarhi found that the reauction to the said hat was done according to the rules. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the action on the part of the said Committee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee was in public interest. 13. In this connection learned counsel has cited the following decision : (1) AIR 1983 SC 1051 - Excise Commr. of U.P. V/s. Manminder Singh. (2) AIR 1983 Pat 83 - Harishankar Singh V/s. State of Bihar. (3) AIR 1978 Pat 131 - Rampati Singh V/s. State of Bihar. 14. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that by an order dated 11-5-82 this court restrained the respondents first party from settling the aforementioned (sic) with liberty to the said respondents to make an application for vacating/modifying the said order of ad interim stay. (3) AIR 1978 Pat 131 - Rampati Singh V/s. State of Bihar. 14. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that by an order dated 11-5-82 this court restrained the respondents first party from settling the aforementioned (sic) with liberty to the said respondents to make an application for vacating/modifying the said order of ad interim stay. Thereafter an application for vacating the aforementioned order of ad interim stay dated 11-5-82 was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. By an order dated 26-7-82 this Court observed as follows :- "Counsel for respondent No. 8 is not in a position to offer any amount of security as a condition for vacating the order of stay. But the counsel for the petitioner is prepared not only to deposit the difference between the amount of his bid and that of respondent No.8 but also a sum of Rs. 5000.00 as a security for payment to respondent No. 8 in case of his failure, subject to the condition that interest of Market Committee as well as respondent No. 8 is safeguarded. While we were going to pass operative portion of the order, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 made a prayer for granting some time to ask instruction from his client as to whether he would also agree to offer any security. Put up on Monday next. In the meantime respondent No. 8 who is admittedly collecting the tolls in the market should produce the accounts of the total collection made till Friday next for our consideration." 14A. By an order dated 4-8-1982 this Court passed the following orders : - "The matter was adjourned to this day to enable the learned counsel for respondent No. 8 to contact his client for offering a security on his behalf. Mr. Sushil Chandra Sinha appearing for respondent No. 8 when offered a security of Rs. 8,000.00 learned counsel for the petitioner raised his offer as on previous day from 5,000.00 to 10,000/-. Mr. Sinha, therefore, left the matter in our hands for fixing the proper security and to allow respondent No. 8 to continue with the settlement. Having examined the facts and circumstance of the case, we fix Rs. 12,500.00 as security to be deposited either in cash or by a bank draft by respondent No. 8 within 4 weeks from today in this Court. Having examined the facts and circumstance of the case, we fix Rs. 12,500.00 as security to be deposited either in cash or by a bank draft by respondent No. 8 within 4 weeks from today in this Court. The amount deposited will be invested for a period of one year in any Term Deposit with a Bank by the office. The said security amount (or part thereof) will be available for payment to the petitioner on his success, subject to the orders of this Court." 15. It may further be mentioned that the petitioner filed an application for directing the Bairagania Bazar Agricultural Produce Market Committee to allow refund to the petitioner as bid money amounting to Rs. 18,850.00 and the said petition was allowed by an order dated 25-8-83. 16. In view of the respective contentions of the parties and the statements made in their respective pleadings, in my opinion, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court : - (a) Whether the action on the part of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in issuing the impugned notice is mala fide ? (b) Whether the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in so far as before passing the same, the petitioner was neither given an opportunity of hearing nor was he communicated with any reasons therefor ? (c) Whether the respondent had any authority or power to issue the impugned notice? (d) Whether the petitioner has any legal right to maintain this writ petition? Re : - Question No. (a) 17. The allegation of mala fide as against the respondent No. 3, as noticed hereinbefore, has been made in paras 12 and 13 to the writ petition. Paragraph 12 of the writ petition has not been verified by the petitioner whereas paragraph 13 has been verified as true to the knowledge of the deponent derived from the records or otherwise of the case. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit in paragraph 9 thereof have categorically stated that the statements made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition were totally false and untrue. The petitioner although has filed a reply to the said counter affidavit but he has not traversed paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit at all. Further the petitioner has not even impleaded the respondent No. 3 in his personal capacity. 18. The petitioner although has filed a reply to the said counter affidavit but he has not traversed paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit at all. Further the petitioner has not even impleaded the respondent No. 3 in his personal capacity. 18. It is now well settled that a plea of mala fide has to be based upon proper materials. A High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot decide a plea of mala fide on fact on the basis of vague allegation. In this connection, as noticed hereinbefore, not only the plea of mala fide besides being vague, the relevant statements have not been properly verified at all. Further the petitioner has not even chosen to traverse paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. In this situation I have no other option but to hold that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove the allegation of malafide as against the respondent No. 3. Re : - Questions Nos. (b) and (c) 19. From the facts, as stated hereinbefore, it is evident that the bid was held on Sunday. The said bid was also outside the headquarters of the market committee. From the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit it appears, that it was decided therein, that although the petitioner was the highest bidder but if any higher offer is made, the Sub-Committee upon taking a fresh decision in that regard may hold fresh bid. So far as the petitioners bid was concerned, he was directed to deposit half of the big amount on a provisional basis. It was further mentioned therein that in case there arises a possibility of a higher amount being offered in favour of the market-committee, the petitioner shall not claim any right of settlement of the said hat on the basis of the amount deposited by him. As stated hereinbefore, according to the respondents the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee were read over and explained to the petitioner and the petitioner deposited 50% of the bid money on the aforementioned conditions. 20. From the minutes of meeting dated 22-3-82 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit it appears that the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the objection of one Mr. 20. From the minutes of meeting dated 22-3-82 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit it appears that the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the objection of one Mr. Nawal Kishore Thakur and decided to cancel the auction in which the petitioner was the higher bidder. The said decision was taken in the interest of general public as also in the interest of, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. The impugned notice as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition was issued pursuant to the aforementioned minutes of the meeting. 21. From the facts aforementioned it is evident that the Market Committee did not proceed either arbitrarily or irrationally. 22. As according to the respondents the half of the bid amount was accepted from the petitioner on conditions mentioned in Annexure-B referred to hereinbefore, the acceptance of the petitioners bid being a conditional one, he was bound thereby and in that view of the matter no notice was required to be given to the petitioner nor was he required to be heard prior to the issuance of the impugned notice as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Further the Marketing Committee, in my opinion, has assigned sufficient reasons for issuing the impugned notice which as stated hereinbefore was preceeded by the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 22-3-1982. Further from the aforementioned acts on the part of the concerned respondents it is evident that the said decision was taken as it was pointed out before the Sub-Committee that the auction which was held on 28-2-1982 being a Sunday and the said auction having taken place at Sitamarhi (outside the headquarters of the Market Committee), several intending bidders could not participate therein. Even the objector Sri Nawal Kishore Thakur offered a sum of Rs. 42,000/-. 23. I also do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the respondents had no authority or power to cancel the bid in terms of Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 23A. The right of the Market Committee to cancel the bid, in my opinion, cannot be questioned. Such a right is implicit in every person who intends to hold auction. The submission of Mr. 23A. The right of the Market Committee to cancel the bid, in my opinion, cannot be questioned. Such a right is implicit in every person who intends to hold auction. The submission of Mr. Yogedra Mishra to the effect that the auction could be cancelled only in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement, in my opinion, is wholly misplaced. The question of violation of any term or condition embodied in the agreement would have arisen only after the said agreement is executed. In the instant case admittedly no agreement was executed by the Marketing Committee in favour of the petitioner and in that view of the matter the question of violation of any condition contained in such an agreement does not arise. 24. After taking into consideration of the relevant facts I am of the view that the impugned notice does not suffer from the vires of arbitrariness. In view of my aforementioned findings, in my opinion, the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner have no application in the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. In International Airport Authoritys case ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) (supra) the petitioner thereof was denied the right to participate in the tender whereas in Harminder Singh Aroras case ( AIR 1986 SC 1527 ) (supra) the respondents acted contrary to its policy decision and in that case the tenders were not adjudged on their own merits in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice. In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the tender was cancelled after due deliberation amongst the members of the Sub-Committee and on cogent reasons. Question No. (d) 25. It stands admitted that no agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the Agricultural Produce Market Commitee. In absence of such an agreement it cannot be said that the petitioner acquired any legal right. It is well known that issuance of a writ of mandamus can arise only in the event of existence of a legal right in the petitioner and corresponding legal duty upon the respondents. In absence of such an agreement it cannot be said that the petitioner acquired any legal right. It is well known that issuance of a writ of mandamus can arise only in the event of existence of a legal right in the petitioner and corresponding legal duty upon the respondents. In Chetlal Sao V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1986 Pat LJR 149 : ( AIR 1986 Pat 267 ) a Full Bench of this Court has held that unless an agreement is entered into by and between the State and the bidder, the later does not acquire any legal right whatsoever. 26. In any event as the bid was accepted by the Market Committee, subject to certain conditions and as such it was lawful on the part of the respondents to cancel the said bid as the exigencies therefor arose. 27. Taking into consideration the case from all its ramification I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 28. However it goes without saying that the order dated 4-8-1982 passed by this court shall enure to the benefit of the respondent No. 8.