JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the action of the opposite-party in re-auctioning the "Theka" for collection of carcass, bones and hides of the dead animals on the principal ground that ones his bid was accepted and the whole of the bid money was deposited by him, it was not open to the opposite party to re-auction the "Theka". 2. The petitioner has, however, not filed any document or copy of the order or letter of the opposite party indicating that his bid was ever accepted. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that acceptance letter was not issued to the petitioner. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that petitioner's bid was never accepted and the petitioner has no right to question the action of the opposite party in re-auctioning the "Theka" for collection of carcass, bones and hides of the dead animals. The deposit, if any, made voluntarily by the petitioner of the bid money without the bid having been accepted will not bring about a concluded contract between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1985 SC 1147 . In the said case tire Supreme Court has observed that there should not be any arbitrary decision in the matter of contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to para 13 of the report, which reads as under : - "13. Approaching the matter from this angle, can there be any doubt that the appellant whose highest bid was rejected by the Government should have no opportunity to improve his bid more so when his bid was rejected on the ground that it did not represent adequate market consideration for the concession to extract minor mineral. A unilateral offer, secretly made, not correlated to any reserved price made by the fourth respondent after making false statement in the letter was accepted without giving any opportunity to the appellant either to raise the bid or to point out the falsity of the allegations made by the fourth respondent in the letter as also the inadequacy of his bid. The appellant suffered an unfair treatment by the State in discharging its administrative functions thereby violating the fundamental principle of fair play in action. When he gave highest bid, he could not have been expected to raise his own bid in the absence of a competitor. Any expectation to the contrary betrays a woeful lack of knowledge of auction process. And then some one surreptitiously by a secret offer scored a march over him. No opportunity was given to him either to raise the bid or to controvert and correct the erroneous statement." 4. In our opinion, this decision of the Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable as instead of accepting the petitioner's bid which was highest, an offer was surreptitiously obtained from someone and accepted without providing any opportunity to the petitioner of that case either to raise the bid or to controvert and correct the erroneous statement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Haji T.M. Has an Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157 and invited our attention to paras 12, 13 and 14 of the report in which the Supreme Court has again observed that the State and its authority should be fair in the matter of granting the contract and that their actions should be legitimate and their dealings should be above board. 6. The proposition laid down above by the Supreme Court cannot be questioned and is binding on this Court. But in the instant case the petitioner has failed to show as to how the opposite party has acted arbitrarily in the matter of contract. The contract has not yet been awarded to any one. The opposite party has not accepted any bid. The opposite party is simply putting the matter to auction again. If the offers are not upto the reserved price that might have been estimated or fixed by the opposite party, the latter in our opinion, would be justified under law in putting the contract to re-auction. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage.