M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have preferred these petitions seeking the following reliefs:"for issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notification found at Annexure-H issued by respondent 3 at the instance of respondent 2 in No. Kcdc: kpr: sales: 1989-90, dated 26-12-1989 and issue appropriate directions or order to accept the final bids offered by the petitioners in so far as it relates to unit Nos. 9, 13 and 32 of kundapur division. "the facts briefly stated ate these: by a notification dated 17-11-1989 the 1st respondent Karnataka cashew development corporation Ltd. , Mangalore published a tender-cum-auction notice announcing its intention to auction certain units in favour of the successful bidders for harvesting of cashew crop. The bid offered by the petitioners for the respective units was the highest and they were accepted by the person who conducted the auction - respondent 3 the divisional manager. Consequent upon the bids being accepted and 1/4th of the bid amount also deposited in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. Petitioners were lead to believe that the sale in their favour was final. However, one of the conditions of the auction was that the ultimate decision to accept the bid would be with the 1st respondent and subject to its approval. In the case of petitioners, despite their compliance with some of the requirements of the conditions of the auctions, the bid came to be cancelled and the question of right to harvest tendered for a fresh tender-cum-auction sale. That notification announcing the fresh tender-cum-auction sale as per Annexure-H is challenged in these writ petitions. ( 2 ) FOR two reasons, the reliefs may not be granted. Apart from the reasons furnished by the respondents in their statement of objections. Normally, the state is free to carry on such trade activities as it likes like any other trader. That notification announcing the fresh tender-cum-auction sale as per Annexure-H is challenged in these writ petitions. ( 2 ) FOR two reasons, the reliefs may not be granted. Apart from the reasons furnished by the respondents in their statement of objections. Normally, the state is free to carry on such trade activities as it likes like any other trader. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C. K. Achutan v The State of Kerala and others, AIR 1959 SC 490 and in the case of The State of Orissa and others v Harinarayanjaiswal and others, AIR 1972 SC 1816 but subsequent to the aforementioned decisions the Supreme Court has laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v The international airport authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 that in the conduct of sale by inviting tender or tender-cum-auction, there should be fair-play thought is administrative in character it also attracts Article 14 of the constitution, if there is no fair-play. Therefore, this court may interfere with the right of the state to trade in the manner it likes, if there is evidence of arbitrariness. ( 3 ) THE allegations of mala fides are vaguely made by the respondents in the isstatement. Nor is there any specific allegation that any particular person is favoured by the cancellation of the earlier sale in favour of the petitioners. In fact, if properly understood the terms of the auction do not disclose that the tender-cum-auction sale could not be completed till the board gave its approval. ( 4 ) THERE was no completed contract in which the petitioners may claim a legal right to enforce the contract. Assuming that there is such completion of a contract of sale then those rights under the contracts cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the constitution. Even for that reason this court has to reject the relief prayed for by the writ petitioners, ( 5 ) THE fact that they have announced re-tendering the sale for fresh tender-cum-auction sale demonstrates the bona fides of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners are free to participate in the auction announced as per Annexure-H or subsequent auction which may be directed because Annexure-H was stayed by this court and no sale as such has taken place on the specified date. Therefore, the petitioners are free to participate in the auction announced as per Annexure-H or subsequent auction which may be directed because Annexure-H was stayed by this court and no sale as such has taken place on the specified date. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter the petitioners have not been affected by Annexure-H and therefore they cannot maintain these petitions. ( 7 ) IF the petitioners are entitled to have the amount deposited by them to be refunded if they make a demand and even if there is no demand as at present, this court will issue necessary directions to refund the amount. The counsel has not pressed for the same. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by Annexure-H. The petitions are dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .