Judgment : The petitioner is seeking for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to accept the tender of the petitioner at Rs.10,13,000 in respect of Shop No.3, Ward No.10, Dindigul Town. Dindigul-Anna District. 2. The brief facts are: The petitioner along with others, paid earnest money deposit on 5. 1995 to participate in the auction for the vending of Indian made foreign liquor for the year 1995-96. The authorised officer received the amount and issued the receipt. The auction was scheduled to 5. 1995. On that date, 150 persons intended to participate in the auction. The Sale Officer hand in glove with the 3rd respondent postponed the sale to 12.30 p.m. which was originally scheduled to 10.00 a.m. The Sale Officer did not announce the successful bidder, which in the normal course, he has to do. Petitioner quoted Rs.10,13,000 earlier to the auction and his tender was not taken into consideration. Since the petitioner and others prevented from bidding at the auction, immediately he complained to the Collector, Dindigul-Anna District about the arbitrary manner in which the sale was conducted. The shop was again reauctioned on 25. 1995. On that day also the same situation prevailed and the petitioner and others were prevented from participating in the auction. Being aggrieved by the manner in which the auction was conducted by the Sale Officer, he made representation to the District Collector on 25. 95 and even in that letter he had informed and offered Rs. 10,13,000 for the shop in question. The Collector immediately informed him that he would look into the matter and went to Kodaikanal for summer festival. Even to this date, no action was taken. He has contended that he complied with Rules 7, 8 and 9 strictly. He intended to participate in the auction, but he was unjustly prevented from participating in the auction. The Sale Officer failed to follow the procedure in conducting the auction and did not place the sealed box where the tender covers are deposited. Nor did the Sale Officer demand from the intended parties whether they were desirous of submitting any tender. The intending participants were not allowed either to bid at the auction or to submit tender and the Sale Officer interfered with the right of the participants and restricted the right only to one mode, without resorting to calling for tenders. Nor did the Sale Officer demand from the intended parties whether they were desirous of submitting any tender. The intending participants were not allowed either to bid at the auction or to submit tender and the Sale Officer interfered with the right of the participants and restricted the right only to one mode, without resorting to calling for tenders. He further contended that his offer was three times more than the 3rd respondent. There was no reason to prefer the 3rd respondent than the tender of the petitioner. The Collector failed to take any action though immediately malpractices were brought to his knowledge and he did not exercise his powers under Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The indiscreet attitude of the respondents affected the State revenue and the vending for the excise year has gone for such an inadequate price and he contends that respondents 1 and 2 had acted arbitrarily while parting with the privilege of the State and their action is opposed to principles of natural justice. 3. Respondent 1 has filed his counter alleging at paragraph 2 that there were 101 persons who remitted the E.M.D. for Shop No.3 and only 12 persons amongst them have participated and the sale officer conducted the sale in a free and fair manner. It is also averred that the sale was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations. But at para 4, respondent No. 1 has stated that the petition dated 25. 1995 was actually received by the Collector on 30.5.1995. Before processing the petition, the petitioner moved the High Court and got an order of injunction on 30.5.1995 and the writ petitioner has not waited for the Collector’s order. At paragraph 6, it is alleged that resale was conducted on 25. 1995 and the bid amount was Rs.3,34,000. In the re-sale there were 251 persons deposited E.M.D. and only eight persons participated in the bid. The sale is not yet confirmed and alleged that the writ petitioner has failed to deposit the E.M.D. on 25. 1995 to participate in the re-auction. It is stated that he remitted the E.M.D. only for the sale conducted on 5. 1995 and further contends that he has not exhausted the remedy of appeal and revision as provided under the relevant rules. 1995 to participate in the re-auction. It is stated that he remitted the E.M.D. only for the sale conducted on 5. 1995 and further contends that he has not exhausted the remedy of appeal and revision as provided under the relevant rules. He has also stated that he should have remitted the entire amount, if so desired by him by means of a demand draft and enclosed along with his petition to the Collector to strengthen his claim that he was prepared to take the shop in auction for Rs. 10, 13,000 which he failed to do. 4. The impleading applicant more or less adopted in the same stand as has been contended by respondent No.l. 5. In that reply, the petitioner has categorically asserted that he along with others was prevented from participating in the auction and the sale officer did not take any steps to check the persons who were successful bidders in the earlier auction, who took strenuous steps to forbid, fresh entrants. He also stated that he met the Collector in his Chamber along with his brother and he raised his objections in his letter and filed the following documents viz.. affidavit, tender form and a demand draft for Rs.10,000 drawn on the State Bank of India in favour of the Collector, the D.D. Number being 469786. He has further affirmed that the sale officer, while conducting the sale, joined hands with the erstwhile vendors and his men and had made a mockery of the whole auction and the Collector as a responsible officer ought to have verified the statement by holding an enquiry and he has failed to exercise his power under Rule 11(2) of the rules. He has also averred that respondent No.4 and his men has caused loss to the revenue and the State had suffered on account of the syndicate formation. Though the shops were capable of fetching more than 10 lakhs rupees, the respondents by not taking proper steps and in joining hands with the auction purchaser, had allowed the shops to be auctioned for a song. Even to this date, the Collector has not taken any action on the representation filed by the petitioner. 6. Though the shops were capable of fetching more than 10 lakhs rupees, the respondents by not taking proper steps and in joining hands with the auction purchaser, had allowed the shops to be auctioned for a song. Even to this date, the Collector has not taken any action on the representation filed by the petitioner. 6. From these pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are: Whether the action of the respondents 1 and 2 not allowing the petitioner and other intending applicants to participate in the auction is arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice and whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of locus standi and not exhausting the alternative remedy? 7. In the matter of sale of public property the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and every body has an opportunity of making an offer. Public auction after adequate publicity ensures participation of every person who is inter- ested in purchasing the property and generally secures the best price. But many times it may not be possible to secure the best price by public auction when the bidders join together so as to depress the bid or the nature of the property to be sold is such that suitable bid may not be received at public auction. In that event, the other suitable mode for selling of property can be by inviting the tenders. In order to ensure that such sale by calling tenders does not escape attention of an intending participant, it is essential that every endeavour should be made to give wide publicity so as to get the maximum price. The Government action must satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest. Unlike private individual. State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess and deal with any person in its absolute discretion. Respondents 1 and 2 have accepted the bid for a lesser amount, which is wholly disadvantageous to the State and involve considerable loss of revenue to the State. The price realised at the auction is so less when compared to the offer of the petitioner, if the respondents have allowed all the applicants to participate, the State would have got the higher price. The price realised at the auction is so less when compared to the offer of the petitioner, if the respondents have allowed all the applicants to participate, the State would have got the higher price. The State must endeavour to obtain the highest price subject, of course, to any other overriding considerations of public interest. Otherwise, giving licence to vend to a selected individual at a lesser price would be arbitrary and contrary to the public interest. In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1992, the Supreme Court has held that where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest and is found to be wanting in the qualities of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. 8. The property of the State is a socialist property, which would imply that it is a property of the community and every citizen of this country has vital interest in its effects, use and legitimate disposal. But where disposal is for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is under an obligation to secure the best market price available in the market economy. Surreptitiously, a few individuals scored a march over many and obtained vend for a lesser amount compared to the offer made by the petitioner, which indicates that respondents 1 and 2 have not bothered to the loss of revenue to the State. When the petitioner petitioned to the Commissioner immediately, he being the authority under the Rules, ought to have intervened. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others, (1979)3 S.C.R. 1014 , the Supreme Court has held "that the action of the 1 st respondent in accepting the tender of the 4th respondent who did not satisfy the standard or norm, was clearly discriminatory since it excluded other persons similarly situate from tendering for the contract and it was arbitrary and without reason. Acceptance of the tender was invalid as being violative of the equality clause of the Constitution as also of administrative law inhibiting arbitrary action". Acceptance of the tender was invalid as being violative of the equality clause of the Constitution as also of administrative law inhibiting arbitrary action". It has been further held as follows: "Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power of discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and nondiscriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was non-irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory." In Sindri v. Union of India, (1981)1 S.C.C. 568 at 579: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 344 at 350, the pertinent observation may be extracted. "We want to make it clear that we do not doubt the bona fides of the authorities, but as far as possible, sales of the public property, when the intention is to get the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the public atleast gets the satisfaction that the Government has put all its cards on the table". Public auction with open participation and a reserved prices guarantees public interest being fully subserved......" 9. Therefore, the sale officer in the instant case, without giving an opportunity to raise the bid and without resorting to look even to the tender which is more than the reauction price, shows not only the petitioner but others were also prevented from participating in the auction. But an unfair treatment was given to the petitioner and other intending bidders by the respondents 1 and 2 in discharging the administrative functions thereby violating the fundamental principle of fair play in action. .10. But an unfair treatment was given to the petitioner and other intending bidders by the respondents 1 and 2 in discharging the administrative functions thereby violating the fundamental principle of fair play in action. .10. In the instant case, the uncontraverted facts are that he gave earnest money deposit to participate in the auction at the earliest point of time but he was not allowed to participate, so also some others. Immediately, on 25. 1995, the petitioner along with his brother complained to the Collector. His earlier earnest money deposit amount was not returned. When he complained about the illegalities, irregularities of arbitrary manner in which they were prevented or the non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Collector or the Commissioner did not act on the complaint. The petitioner has mentioned in his application that he was prepared to take the shop in question for Rs.10,13,000 but this was not at all looked into. This aspect is a glaring instance to show that the respondents 1 and 2 have ignored the interests of the revenue of the State. The business interests of the petitioner might have goaded the petitioner to expose the unsavory deal. But the fact remains but for the petitioner, the community’s interest sacrificed by the respondents indulging in huge loss to public exchequer would have gone unnoticed. The very fact that the petitioner is seriously agitating this petition without loss of time and auction is not yet confirmed, is a fact situation, which goes to show that if he would have been allowed to participate, the State would have got a higher revenue. Apart from all other aspects, the very fact that the petitioner was ready to offer Rs. 10,13,000 against the present bid and his attempt to meet the Collector in this regard and his pursuing this writ petition clearly show that the shop would certainly fetch a higher revenue than the present one. The non-opening of his tender wherein he has offered Rs. 10,13,000 to the shop in question shows that the procedure of tender was not considered at all. The method adopted in settling the matter behind the back of those who are interested and anxious in competing the auction, is unjustified and has resulted in the loss of revenue to the State. 10,13,000 to the shop in question shows that the procedure of tender was not considered at all. The method adopted in settling the matter behind the back of those who are interested and anxious in competing the auction, is unjustified and has resulted in the loss of revenue to the State. It is true that this Court on an earlier occasion in Writ Appeal No.781 of 1995 has taken the view that normally auction should not be set aside, if there is a fairness in auction, parties are allowed to participate and higher price was secured to the privilege of the State. But in the instant case, that is not the situation. It is a case of preventing the petitioner and others from participating in the auction, though they gave the earnest money deposit. It is a case of omission to take action under Rule 11 (2). It is a case of promoting and assisting the syndicate by joining hands with them to the loss of revenue to the State. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is arbitrary and without reason. .11. When their right to participate is prevented, the petitioner is an aggrieved person, can always maintain the petition. He being the person deprived of an opportunity of participating in the auction, having done all at his command to participate, when prevented he is justified in approaching this Court. In a similar situation in K.Susairathnam v. Divisional Engineer, H.D.C. Tirunelveli, A.I.R. 1995 Mad. 90, this Court has held as under: .“Petitioner intending participant making all efforts for obtaining schedule - Tender schedule refused to him illegally - writ petition against -can be maintained by him being an aggrieved party.” 12. The next question remains for consideration is whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-exhausting the alternative remedy? 13. In Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1147: (1985)3 S.C.C. 267 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “Originally, it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the court. Where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid or being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Art.226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal likes to the Higher Officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits”. In the instant case, respondents 1 and 2 have failed to take any action or pass any order on the representation of the petitioner, given by his brother. Any appeal to the same person amounts, to exercising the right in futility and it will not be an effective and beneficial remedy. Therefore, there is no force in the contention that the petition is liable to be dismissed for not exhausting the remedy of appeal as provided under the Rules. 14. Keeping in view the interest of the State and procedural unfairness and the arbitrary manner in which the petitioner and other intending bidders were prevented from participating and in view of the offer made by him, three times more than the highest bid of the 4th respondent, the only option open to the court would be to direct a fresh auction, that too, in a situation when the auction is not yet confirmed. For the reasons stated above, I make the following order: The re-auction held on 25. 1995 is set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct re-auction after due publication, required under the Rules, allowing the petitioner and all persons, whoever comply with the requirements of the Rules and intend to participate. If in the re-auction, in the event of the highest bid not being more than what has been offered by the petitioner, it shall be confirmed in favour of the petitioner, since he has sought for a direction to accept his tender for Rs.10,13,000 in respect of Shop No.3, Ward No.10. If in the re-auction, in the event of the highest bid not being more than what has been offered by the petitioner, it shall be confirmed in favour of the petitioner, since he has sought for a direction to accept his tender for Rs.10,13,000 in respect of Shop No.3, Ward No.10. That serves the object of the Rules viz., to realise the highest price in the interests of revenue of the State. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Parties to bear their, own costs.