B. N. KIRPAL, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 270 of 1993 filed by the Administrator, Bavla Nagar Panchayat and Letters Patent Appeal No. 367 and 1993, filed by Bavla Bazar Vepari Association and others, whereby the decision of the learned single Judge dated 4th June, 1993 in Special Civil Application No. 5276 of 1993 has been challenged. The aforesaid Panchayat had decided to give ijara for collection of octroi for the period 1st November, 1992 to 31st of March,1994. A public advertisement was issued, inviting offers and on 13th of October,1993, the auction was held. The bid of the original petitioner of Rs. 4,44,000/- per month was the highest and the same was accepted. It appears that a third party filed a suit in the Civil Court, Dholka, and obtained an injunction, whereby the original petitioner could not collect any octroi. That the said injunction was challenged and this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1596 of 1993 quashed the same. At the time when the auction was held, the old rates of octroi were in force. Subsequently, on 30th of November, 1991, the State Government notified new rates which should be charged by the Panchyats for collecting octroi. It is common ground that when the auction was held, the rates which were in vague were the old rates. After the quashing of the aforesaid injunction, the original petitioner was required by the Panchayat to take over the octroi contract. On receipt of this information, the original petitioner wrote a letter dated 27th of March,1993 to the Administrator of the Panchayat to the effect that the contract, which was auctioned, had a duration of 17 months and as charge had been taken of 28th of March, 1993, the original petitioner should be permitted to collect octroi till 27th of August, 1994. This objection was given in writing before assuming charge of the octroi contract. ( 2 ) IN May, 1993, a formal agreement on a stamp paper was executed between the panchayat and the Contractor-original Petitioner. In this agreement, it was stated that the contract was awarded for collecting octroi for the period from 28th March, 1993 to 31st of march, 1994 on the terms and conditions, which had been stipulated. ( 2 ) IN May, 1993, a formal agreement on a stamp paper was executed between the panchayat and the Contractor-original Petitioner. In this agreement, it was stated that the contract was awarded for collecting octroi for the period from 28th March, 1993 to 31st of march, 1994 on the terms and conditions, which had been stipulated. The octroi was to be collected as per the octroi schedule, which was in force at the time of giving the contract and this schedule prescribed the old rates. On 13th of May, 1993, the original petitioner wrote to the Administrator of the panchayat and after referring to the aforesaid agreement, it was stated that the period of the contract should be fixed for 17 months with effect from 28th of March, 1993 and that they should be permitted to collect the octroi at the new rates. The administrator rejected these demands vide his letter dated 21st of May, 1993 and it is that letter, which was challenged in the petition under Article 226 filed in this court, being Special Civil application No. 5276 of 1993. After the rule was issued, counsel for the Panchayat entered appearance and the case was heard on 4th of June, 1993. Counsel for the original petitioner showed his willingness to pay Rs. 1,1 l,000/- more to the respondent-Panchayat This plea to commence collecting octroi duty at the prescribed new rates and for a period of 17 months was, allowed. The counsel, who appeared for the Panchayat, stated before the learned single Judge that the panchayat, had resolved to apply the new rates. But, the final decision had not yet been taken, though it was anxious to get the benefits of the new octroi rates. Vide order dated 4th of June,1993, the learned single Judge directed that on payment of Rs. Rs. 1,1 l,000/- by the original petitioner, to the Panchayat, the original petitioner would be allowed to collect octroi duty at the new rates as prescribed by the State for 17 months from the date he started collecting the octroi duty. The aforesaid decision has been challenged in this Appeal by the Panchayat, as well as by the Bavla Bazar Vepari Association. The aforesaid decision has been challenged in this Appeal by the Panchayat, as well as by the Bavla Bazar Vepari Association. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the appellants is that by the said judgment, the period of the contract has been extended and, furthermore, original petitioner has been allowed to collect octroi at the new rates even though the Panchayat has not followed the prescribed procedure and has not so far adopted the new rates and nor has the sanction of the new rates to be charged by the Panchayat been obtained from the State Government. From the facts enumerated hereinabove, it is clear that the original petitioner had started collecting octroi with effect from 28th of March, 1993. We are not concerned with fact that due to an injunction, which was issued, the original petitioner was unable to collect octroi with effect from 1st October, 1992. The letter of 27th of March, 1993, no doubt, stated that the original petitioner should be allowed to collect octroi for a period of 17 months, but, in the said letter there was no demand by him for charging octroi at the new rates. Even though the said letter of protest or demand dated 27th of March, 1993 had been written and the petitioner had commenced collecting octroi with effect from 28th of march,1993 nevertheless before 13th of May,1993 a formal agreement between the panchayat and the original petitioner was executed. The said document clearly stipulated that the contract was for a period from 28th March, 1993 to 31st March ,1994 and that the octroi could be collected only at the old rates. It is no doubt true that, vide letter dated 27th March, 1993 the original petitioner did contend that he should be permitted to collect octroi for 17 months and at this higher rate. But, the fact remains that he had executed a formal agreement prior to that date, agreeing to the contract period, being 28th March, 1993 to 31st March, 1994. The effect of the aforesaid Agreement being entered into clearly was that the so-called protest contained in the letter of 27lh of March, 1993 with regard to the duration of the contract lost all significance. Having agreed, in the said Agreement, to the contract being effective till 31st of March, 199. The effect of the aforesaid Agreement being entered into clearly was that the so-called protest contained in the letter of 27lh of March, 1993 with regard to the duration of the contract lost all significance. Having agreed, in the said Agreement, to the contract being effective till 31st of March, 199. 4, the original petitioner could not, legitimately, contend that the duration of the contract should be extended. ( 4 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that the document of May,1993 was executed by the original petitioner either under duress or under protest. The said Agreement was entered into voluntarily and with open eyes. Having agreed to the duration of the contract, being from 28th of March,1993 to 31st of March,1994, and to me rate of the octroi being as stipulated in the old rates, it is not open to one of the contracting parties, namely, the original petitioner, to challenge that contract. The original petitioner is clearly estopped from doing so. With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned single Judge that the original petitioner could collect the octroi at the new rates and for a period of 17 months. Such a direction would be clearly contrary to the written contract of May,1993. The terms of an agreement are to be agreed to between the parties and the said terms cannot be varied or altered without their consent. The Panchayat had not adopted the new rates and, therefore, there could be no occasion for the contractor being allowed to collect octroi at the rates, which were not in force. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the Appeals are allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .