Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The District Collector, Vellore notified in the District Gazette dated 2-3-1998 several sand and stone quarries, situate within his jurisdiction for tender-cum-auction so as to enable him to lease out the rights to quarry minerals to the successful bidders/tenderers under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. The sand quarry bearing Survey No. 514/1 Seekarajapuram, Wallajah Taluk, and Survey No. 1, Perumudi Village, Vellore Taluk, were also brought for auction pursuant to the said notification. Sealed tenders were invited till 25-3-1998 and public auction was to be held on 26-3-1998. In the said public auction, the petitioner in W.P. No. 6110 of 1998 was the successful bidder with respect to the quarry bearing Survey No. 514/1, Seekarajapuram village and his bid was for a sum of Rs. 3,16,000/-. The petitioner in W. P. No. 6109 of 1998 was declared as the successful bidder with respect to S. No. 1, Perumugai village, and his highest bid was for Rs. 16,07,000/-. In both the cases, the petitioners, admittedly deposited 10% of the bid amount immediately on 27-3-1998 and 26-3-1998 respectively. Subsequently, on the ground that the balance 90% amounts were not deposited, the Collector in the order dated 20-4-1998 cancelled the bids of the said writ petitioners. Aggrieved against the same the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 have filed the same, to quash the order of the respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus. 2. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6853 and 6852 of 1998 who are admittedly the second highest bidders with respect to the abovesaid quarries, have filed the above writ petitions seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue confirmation order in their favour with respect to the respective quarries. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 has submitted that the Collector is not correct in rejecting their bids only on the ground that they have not deposited the 90% of the balance bid amounts within seven days from the date of the auction. According to the learned counsel, it is contrary to the tender conditions and to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. According to the learned counsel, it is contrary to the tender conditions and to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. The learned counsel took me to clause 16 of the tender conditions, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- (Vernacular matter is omitted ...Ed.) Again, in clause 20, it is stated as follows :- (Vernacular matter is omitted ...Ed.) Relying on the abovesaid conditions, the learned counsel has submitted that the balance amount of 90% should be paid only after receipt of the communication from the Collector. In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied on Rule 8(6)(c) which reads as follows :- "The order of the District Collector granting the lease in favour of any applicant shall be communicated to him accompanied with a copy of the draft lease deed as in the Form in Appendix I to these rules and a map of the area and demarcated area granted on lease to him. On receipt of the above order of the District Collector, the applicant shall produce the original challan for the remittance of the balance amounts indicated in the order of the Collector, the draft lease deed and the map of the area with the signature of the applicant within the stipulated time along with the required stamp papers for preparing the original lease deed and also deposit as security ten per cent of the annual lease amount or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater". From the abovesaid tender conditions and the Rules it is very clear that the balance amount should be paid only on receipt of the order of the District Collector granting lease in favour of the appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6852 and 6853 of 1998 relying on the amended Rules as amended in G. O. Ms. No. 15, Industries (MMC.1) dated 22-1-1997 has submitted that the remaining 90% of the tender amount/bid amount shall be paid within a week from the date of the bid. The learned counsel has relied on the sub-clause (vii) which was amended in and by the said Government Order, reads as follows :- "The remaining 90 per cent of the tendered amount/bid amount shall be paid with a week's time thereafter. The learned counsel has relied on the sub-clause (vii) which was amended in and by the said Government Order, reads as follows :- "The remaining 90 per cent of the tendered amount/bid amount shall be paid with a week's time thereafter. If this 90 per cent of the said amount is not paid within that time, 10 per cent of the amount already paid immediately after the auction/tender shall be forfeited to the Government along with the Earnest Money Deposit" 5. According to the learned counsel, the said sub-clause should be read along with the sub-clause (6) in which the highest bidder is directed to pay 10% immediately and so thereafter within a week the remaining 90% should be paid. 6. I am not able to accept the said submission. In the sub-clause (6) to sub-rule (5) to Rule 8 itself it is not stated that the remaining 90% of the tendered amount/bid amount should be paid within a week from the date of auction. Time limit to pay 90%, viz., a week's time thereafter should be construed that after completion of the procedures contemplated under sub-clause (vi). For this conclusion I derive support from Rule 8(6)(c) of the Rules. 7. Rule 8(6)(c) of the Rules clearly says that the successful bidder should pay the remaining amount after the receipt of the Collector's order granting lease in favour of the highest bidder. The tender conditions also are in accordance with Rule 8(6) (c) of the Rules. So, sub-clause (vii) to sub-rule (5) should be read along with Rule 8(6)(c) of the Rules. 8. There cannot be two different procedures under the same Rules with respect to the auction of the quarry. It cannot also be said that by amending sub-clause (vii) to sub-rule (5), Rule 8(6)(c) is deleted. Even if two constructions are possible, it is well settled that the Court must adopt the one which will ensure smooth and harmonious working of the Rules and eschew the other which will lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience. It is also well settled that the Court's interpretation must be germane to its act and its purpose. A statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to the other provision in the same Act so as to make a consistent communication of the whole statute. It is also well settled that the Court's interpretation must be germane to its act and its purpose. A statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to the other provision in the same Act so as to make a consistent communication of the whole statute. Sub-clause (vii) of the Rule must be read as part of an integral whole and as being interdependent. An attempt should be made in construing the same to reconcile them if it is reasonable possible to do so and to avoid repugnancy. 9. In view of the abovesaid fact, we have to interpret the said clause (vii) only to the effect that the remaining 90% of the bid amount shall be paid within a week from the date his bid is considered satisfactorily by the District Collector as mentioned in sub-clause (6). In support of his submission the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeevi, has relied on the decision in Sri Rama Machinery Corpn. Ltd. Etc. M/s. v. The Deputy Controller of Stores, Etc., 1996 WLR 336) to submit that the conditions mentioned in the tender will prevail. In the said decision, the learned Judge has held as follows :- "Without any application of mind, the respondent has sent the communication dated 31-5-1994 extending time by 6-6-1994 so as to comply with the clause 11 of the tender conditions. Had the 14 days time been given at the first instance, the petitioner would have taken some steps to pay the amount as well as to furnish the bank guarantee without approaching the respondents for extension of time. When the respondent had restricted the time by a week naturally, the petitioner had approached the respondent for extension of time, and there is nothing wrong for the petitioner to wait for the orders of the respondents for extension of time. In such circumstances, the respondent ought to have extended the time to the petitioner both to pay the security deposit and to furnish bank guarantee. When the respondent has not granted 14 days time as stipulated under clause 11 of the tender conditions the rejection order is liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the respondent ought to have extended the time to the petitioner both to pay the security deposit and to furnish bank guarantee. When the respondent has not granted 14 days time as stipulated under clause 11 of the tender conditions the rejection order is liable to be set aside. It cannot be contended by the respondents that in piecemeal they have extended the time in all together to a total of 14 days which would place the petitioner totally at the mercy of the respondent. The conduct of the respondents in violating the clause 11 of the tender conditions is contrary to law. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside" 10. In view of the above, it is clear that the District Collector, Vellore has not applied his mind before passing order with reference to the conditions and the Rules. The reasons stated by the District Collector, Vellore that the petitioners have not deposited the balance amount within seven days from the date of the auction cannot be sustained. So, the order of the District Collector, Vellore cancelling the bids of the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 dated 20-4-1998 cannot be sustained and they are set aside and the District Collector, Vellore is directed to pass orders in accordance with the Rules and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, confirming the bids of the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 as he has not given any other reasons to cancel the bids of the petitioners. Accordingly, W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 are allowed. No costs. 11. In view of the order passed in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998, W. P. Nos. 6852 and 6853 of 1998 cannot be sustained. Hence they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. Nos. 10439, 10440, 12701, 12702, 13359, 9429 and 9430 of 1998 are closed. Order accordingly.