JUDGMENT Two points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the sanction accorded by the Collector is vitiated and secondly, the condition as regards depositing of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money and the premium payable on successful bidding and escalation or enhancement of the rate of premium are onerous. It was also stated that there was no beat of drum, and the auction was not publicised by beat of drum. In matters of this kind purely contractual in nature, therefore, the scope of interference under Article 226 is extremely narrow. Firstly, there is no compulsion, the bidders are not compelled to participate. Secondly, imposition of conditions as regards earnest money or the clause relating to subsequent enhancement of rate of premium are material practices. If the conditions are not acceptable, one can keep himself away from participating in bidding. There is no absolute right in contractual matters. It is an esulblished practice in property dealings where lease is granted or proposed to provide for gradual increase in lease rent. The petitioner who is an 'ex-Sarpanch is objecting to the auction having himself availed of a shop as back as 1985 on a nominal rent of Rs. 365/- per month and having challenged the same before this Court by filing writ petition, at the Main seat, at Jabalpur, which was dismissed as not pressed on 24.1.1991 (Annexure P/3). It was dismissed without any cost. Now, this dismissal of the petition was a fact within the knowledge of the petitioner. At least it was expected of him to say so, but on going through the petition this fact has not even been remotely indicated in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was in respect of an earlier auction and not the present one. The subject matter of the petition nonetheless is the same. Be that as it may, the fact remains that having filed a petition in respect of auction proposed earlier by the panchayat, the petitioner having dragged the matter for about 3 years, ultimately got it dismissed as not pressed has again approached this Court challenging auction of shops. This petition came to be filed on 10.9.93. While the auction of the shops in question was to take place on 16.9.93 as now the public notice for such auction. published in local press on 31.8.93. This petition came to be filed on 10.9.93. While the auction of the shops in question was to take place on 16.9.93 as now the public notice for such auction. published in local press on 31.8.93. The petition came to be listed on 14.9.1993with just one day intervening the date of auction and the interim order staying the proposed auction was passed. Thereafter, it has been listed today for further orders on IA. No. I.I.A. No. II is an application, praying for vacating the stay order. So far as the conditions of auction as contained in Annexure P/2 as averred in the petition but the same has not been filed but they are reproduced in paragraph 6 of the petition. The grievance made by the petitioner about depositing of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money and the provisions for enhancement of rate of premium, are conditions normally applicable to such transactions as they are, in the working of panchayat, government bodies or semi-government bodies. Apart from this, there IS no element of compulsion for participation. No legitimate grievance can be made against such imposition of conditions except for having deposited Rs. 365/- so as to enable the petitioner to bid at the auction. The petitioner has not done anything, his interest is writ large, and in the background of fact that he had filed a petition earlier and got it dismissed, his object is to threat Panchayat income. So tar as the authorisation of the Collector is concerned, he is duly authorised u/s Q3 (1). As the matter shows now the petitioner has made no reference to the earlier petition but going through the return filed by the State and the Panchayat, it is not only a case for vacating the stay order but also it can be dismissed. Accordingly, the stay order as passed earlier is vacated and the petition is dismissed with cost of counsel fee Rs. 1,000/- payable to each.