Judgment B.P. Singh. J. The parties have been heard at length and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioners herein claim to be the registered purchasers of forest produce and registered as such with the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation (respondent no. 1) for the year 1995-96. Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders they had filed tenders which were actually opened on 9th January. 1996. as declared. However since the said tenders have been cancelled they have approached this Court praying that the order of the Government annexure-7 dated 9.1.1996, canceling the tender, annexure-9, dated 18.1.1996 being the notice of cancellation annexure10 dated 14.2.1996 which is a notice inviting fresh tenders as also annexure-9/5, dated 7.2.1996, fixing fresh rates for sale of Kendu leaves, be quashed. 3. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Under the previsions of the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973, the State Government for the purpose of purchase and sale of Kendu leaves on its behalf is authorised to appoint agents in respect of different units and any such agent may be appointed in respect of more than one unit but not mote than 3 units. The purchase and sale of Kendu 1eaves have to be done within the area specified by a declaration under section 3 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act, provides for appointment of an Advisory Committee by issuance of a notification in the official gazette for each year commencing on the 1st of July and ending on 30th June next, to advice the State Government for fixing the price at which Kendu leaves may be purchased from the growers by the State Government or its authorised officer or agent. The committee is required to submit its report to the State Government within such time as may be specified therein. The Committee is also obliged to advise the State Government on such other matters as may be referred to it by the State Government. 4. The committee is required to submit its report to the State Government within such time as may be specified therein. The Committee is also obliged to advise the State Government on such other matters as may be referred to it by the State Government. 4. Section 7 of the Act, provides that the State Government shall after considering the report of the committee constituted under section 6, fix the price at which Kendu leaves shall be purchased by it or by its authorised officer or agent during the year for which the committee is constituted under sub-section(1) of section 6, and shall publish the same in the official gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed not later than 31st day of December, and the price so fixed shall not be altered during the year to which it relates Proviso to section 7 is as follows: "provided that if the committee fails to submit its report within the time specified under sub-section(1) of section 6 or within such further time not exceeding 15 days as the State Government may allow, the State Government may proceed to fix the price without the report of the committee." 5. The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation respondent no. 1 here in bas been appointed as the agent of the State of Bihar for the purpose of trade in kendu leaves and has been vested with authority necessary to carry out its duties as the agent of the State. 6. It appears from annexure-2 that the State Government appointed the Advisory Boards in respect of different Divisions of the date by a notification dated 15th November, 1995, published in the Bihar Gazette on 17th November, 1993. The committees were required to advise the State Government as to the price at which Kendu leaves may be purchased from the growers by the State Government or its authorised officer or agent. The notification provided that the recommendation of the committees should be received by 28th February, 1996. 7. It is not in dispute that even before the State Government could fix the rates for purchase of Kendu leaves under section 7 of the Act, the respondent Corporation in anticipation of fixation of the price invited tenders for advance of sale of Kendu leaves for 1996 season. 7. It is not in dispute that even before the State Government could fix the rates for purchase of Kendu leaves under section 7 of the Act, the respondent Corporation in anticipation of fixation of the price invited tenders for advance of sale of Kendu leaves for 1996 season. The last date for filing of tender was 9th January, 1996 till 3 p.m. According to the petitioners they filed tenders which were actually opened after 3p.m. on 9th January, 1996. 8. It is also not disputed that on 9th January, 1996 the Government wrote to the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, intimating him of the decision taken by the State Government that first of all the rates for purchase of Kendu leaves should be fixed and after giving publicity to the rate fixed, for a period of atleast one week, tenders may be invited. It was, therefore, instructed that no action should be taken on the tenders received. In the counter affidavit filed' on behalf of the respondents, is has been stated that though the aforesaid communication dated 9.1.1996 annexure 7 was received at the Head Quarters of the respondent-Corporation on the same day, the lame could not be communicated to all the Divisions immediately with the result that tenders were opened at various centres after 3 p.m. on 9.1.1996. Later, by annexure- 9, notice was published on 18th January, 1996 informing all concerned that the tenders earlier invited had been cancelled and the concerned persons may collect the Bank drafts deposited by them from the concerned Divisional offices. 9. The State of Bihar thereafter published the notification dated 7th February, 1996, on 15th Feb. 96, fixing the rates under section 7 of the Act. Thereafter the respondent Corporation invited fresh tenders by publishing notices in newspaper on 14th Feb. 96 copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-10, intimating that the bidders were required to submit their tenders before 3 p.m. on 29th Feb. 96. 10. The petitioners have challenged the cancellation of the tenders earlier filed and the notices inviting fresh tender. Mr. Tapen Sen, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government was in error in issuing annexure-2. appointing Advisory Committees and requiring them to make their recommendations as to the price at which Kendu lelves were to be purchased by 28th Feb. 95. Mr. Tapen Sen, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government was in error in issuing annexure-2. appointing Advisory Committees and requiring them to make their recommendations as to the price at which Kendu lelves were to be purchased by 28th Feb. 95. He submitted that under section 7 of the Act, the State Government was required to publish by 31st Dec. 95 the price at which Kendu leaves had to be purchased. Obviously therefore the Advisory Committees should have been asked to make their recommendation much before that date so that the Government could consider the recommendations and take a final decision. According to him, the plucking reason of Kendu leaves is between April and June and, therefore, little time was left for necessary operations, unless the price of Kendu leaves was notified well in advance. He further submitted that proviso to section 7 of the Act, was inconsistent with the main section and could not be read harmoniously with the main section. According to him the proviso was loosely drafted. He submitted that as in the year 1995, if the Government failed to notify the price of Kendu leaves by 31st December, of the relevant year, the price fixed in the, earlier year should have been taken to be the price by for the current year as well. This had been done in the past, and rather than canceling the tenders invited, the collection of Kendu leaves could have been done at the rates prescribed for the earlier year. 11. I have already quoted the proviso to section 7 of the Act. The main part of section 7 provides that the Government may on the basis of the recommendation of the committee constituted under sub-section (1) of section 6 fix the price at which Kendu leaves shall be purchased by it or by any of its authorised officer or agent, not later than 31st day of December. The proviso, on the other band provides that in case the committee fails to submit its report within the time specified or within the extended period, the State Government may proceed to fix the price without the report of the committee. I find nothing inconsistent in the proviso so that the same cannot be read harmoniously with the main section. The proviso, on the other band provides that in case the committee fails to submit its report within the time specified or within the extended period, the State Government may proceed to fix the price without the report of the committee. I find nothing inconsistent in the proviso so that the same cannot be read harmoniously with the main section. The main section provides that the State Government may notify the price of Kendu leaves on the basis of the recommendation of the committee and that must be notified by 31st December of the relevent year. The proviso only conceives of a situation where the committee may not make its recommendation in time. In such a situation, the Government may fix the price of its own. There is nothing in the proviso which may justify the criticism leveled by the counsel for the petitioner that the same has been loosely drafted. The proviso only conceives of a situation where the State Government may not be able to fix the price in the absence of the recommendation of the committee. The normal Rule, therefore, is that the State Government will fix the price on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee. The exception to the rule which is incorporated in the proviso is that upon failure of the committee to make recommendation, the State Government may fix the price itself. It is therefore, unnecessary for me to refer to the several decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, but in fairness to him I may only refer to the decisions relied upon by him. They are - AIR 1952 S.C. 369 , AIR 1954 S.C. 596 . 1986 PLJR 950, and 1989 PLJR 199. 12. Learned counsel then submitted that action of the Government in directing the respondent-Corporation to cancel the tenders already invited and to invite fresh tenders after publication of the price of Kendu leaves was not fair and reasonable. He submitted that it affected the rights of the petitioners and went to the extent of arguing that it deprived the petitioners of their light to life including the right to livelihood. Counsel placed reliance on the well known decision of the Supreme Court including Olga Tellts Vrs. Bombay Municipal Corporation. AIR 1986 S.C. 180 . On the other hand counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners had not acquired any light whatsoever. Counsel placed reliance on the well known decision of the Supreme Court including Olga Tellts Vrs. Bombay Municipal Corporation. AIR 1986 S.C. 180 . On the other hand counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners had not acquired any light whatsoever. They had only made an offer which in terms of the advertisement could have been rejected without assigning any reason whatsoever. He further submitted that even in doing so, the respondent-Corporation cannot be permitted to Act, arbitrarily or unfairly. He, therefore, submitted that the only ground on which the action of the respondents could be challenged was the arbitrariness or unfairness of the action and not on the ground of breach of any right of the petitioners. 13. In my view, counsel for the respondents is right in submitting that in a case of this nature courts could only make an enquiry into the reasonableness and fairness of the action. The petitioners had only made an offer which mayor may not be accepted ultimately. By merely, making an offer they did not acquire a right to trade in kendu leaves. At best, they have a right to insist that their tenders may be dealt with fairly and reasonably by the authorities. It will appear from the scheme of the Act, itself that to, fixation of the price of Kondu leaves is a very important event in the procedure prescribed under the Act. The first stage envisaged by the Act, is the appointment of the Advisory Committee to make its recommendation as to the price at which kendu leaves may be purchased from the growers. After the committee makes its recommendation, the second stage is reached end the State Government is required to apply its mind to the recommendation made and thereafter fix the price. Having fixed the price, sub-section (8) obliges the Forest Officer Incharge of the Division to display the price list of kendu leaves fixed by the State Government under, section 7 of the Act, on the notice board kept for the purpose at every depot. It is only thereafter that the stage is reached when it is known at what price Kendu leaves may be offered for sale purchased by the State Government or its authorised officer or agent. It is only thereafter that the stage is reached when it is known at what price Kendu leaves may be offered for sale purchased by the State Government or its authorised officer or agent. Such being the scheme of the Act, it was indeed improper on the part of the respondent-Corporation to invite tenders even before statutory fixation of the price of kendu leaves by the State Government under section 7 of the Act. In the absence of the statutory price fixed by the State Government the tenders were bound to be speculative as the tenders would not know the price at which kendu leaves may have to be purchased. It is only fair that the statutory price fixed by the State Government under section 7 of the Act, must be made known to all concerned before the tenders are invited and this is also the scheme under the Act. The reasonableness of the action taken by the respondents has to be judged in this background. To my mind, the action of the State Government canceling the tenders which were opened on 9th January, 96 was fully justified and can neither be said to be arbitrary nor unreasonable. All that the Government did was to direct the Corporation to invite fresh tenders after publication of the price fixed under section 7 of the Act. 14. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the last date for publication of the price is 31st December, of the relevant year and, therefore, if the Government fails to notify the price by that date the price should have been taken to be the same as was fixed in the earlier year. There is no warrant for this general proposition because section 7 is silent on this aspect of the matter. It is no doubt true that the section provides for publication of the statutory price fixed by the State Government by 31st December because having regard to the plucking season it is in the interest of the State that the price is fixed well in advance so that tender may be invited and settlement made well in advance. However if for any reason the Government fails to do so can it be said that the Government has no power to announce the price after' the date mentioned in the section. However if for any reason the Government fails to do so can it be said that the Government has no power to announce the price after' the date mentioned in the section. In my view, the requirement of publication of the price on or before 31st December of the relevant year is only directory and not mandatory. The law does not provide for the consequence in calc the State Government fails to notify the price by the prescribed date. One of the well accepted tests for determining whether a proviso is directory or mandatory is to see whether the enactment provides for the consequence flowing from non-compliance with the requirement prescribed. If the law does not provide for the consequence, it must be held that the provision is only directory. The provision is meant to impress upon the concerned authorities the desirability of the time frame which must be followed, having regard to the purpose for which the provision has been enacted. (See (1995) 5 SCC 272 ), Administrator, Municipal Committee Vrs. Ramji Lal Bengla and others. 15. In the instant case, all that has happened is that the respondent Corporation invited tenders even without fixation of the price of Kendu leaves under section 7 of the Act. Thereafter the Government realised the mistake committed by the Corporation and directed it not to Act, any further on the basis of the tenders invited and to invite fresh tenders after the price was notified. The action taken by the Government was perfectly in accordance with the scheme of the Act, except that in doing so, the time frame prescribed by section 7 of the Act, could not be followed and the process got a little delayed. This however has not resulted in any loss to the Government because it appears from the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents that the tenders now received even in respect of the divisions and units for which the petitioners had submitted tenders on considerably higher than what wall offered earlier. More over no preference has been shown to any particular person and all persons have been given fair opportunity of submitting tender again after the price bas been notified. I find no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action taken no statute has been violated nor is there any infringement of any fundamental right or statutory right of the petitioners. 16. More over no preference has been shown to any particular person and all persons have been given fair opportunity of submitting tender again after the price bas been notified. I find no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action taken no statute has been violated nor is there any infringement of any fundamental right or statutory right of the petitioners. 16. This writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. Application dismissed.