Judgment : Heard. 2. In the above writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the confirmation order in favour of the petitioner relating to the grant of the stone quarry in S.F.No.48, in M.Puthur Village, Musiri Taluk as notified in Serial No.23 in Schedule II of the notification published in Thiruchirapalli Perumpidugu Mutharaiyar District Gazette No.2, dated 15. 1997 and to execute a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows: The first respondents invited applications for grant of lease of stone quarry locate in S.F.No.48, in M.Puthur village, Musiri Taluk as notified in Serial No.23 in Schedule II of the Notification published in Thiruchirapalli Perumpidugu Mutharaiyar District Gazette No.2 dated 15. 1997 in exercise of power under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 4. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner submitted his tender application in a prescribed form for a sum of Rs.2,05,000 for the grant of lease of the said stone quarry for five years, and also enclosed a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 1,500 by way of application fee and another demand draft for a sum of Rs.25,000 towards earnest money deposit. 5. The respondent proposed to conduct public auction and thereafter to open the sealed tender applications on 6. 1997. Clause 6 of the tender and auction conditions contemplates that all the tenderers should be present at the time of public auction as well as at the time of opening the sealed tenders, either by themselves or represented by their authorised agents. 6. If the tenderers or authorised agents were not present at the time of public auction or at the time of opening the tender the same would not be stopped for want of the tenderers or their authorised agents. 7. Clause 6(c) of the tender and auction conditions, provides that the auction would be confirmed in favour of the highest tenderers or bidder in the auction, as the case may be, who would be asked to pay 10% of the said amount immediately. 7. Clause 6(c) of the tender and auction conditions, provides that the auction would be confirmed in favour of the highest tenderers or bidder in the auction, as the case may be, who would be asked to pay 10% of the said amount immediately. If the said person failed to pay the 10% of the amount, his tender auction would be cancelled and the next highest tenderer or bidder would be called upon to pay 10% of his offer for confirming his tender bid in his favour. On payment of the said 10% tender or amount, the lease would be confirmed in favour of such highest offerer and the balance of 90% of the amount offered should be paid within seven days from the date of the confirmation of the lease. 8. However, it is for the first respondent District Collector to take appropriate decision as to whether he should follow the same procedure inviting the next highest bidder/tenderer or alternatively, to proceed for a reauction. That apart, if the auction amount is less than the tender amount and many persons have offered the same tender amount, the respondent may call such tender applicants and proceed to get the highest lease amount, and finally, the lease will be confirmed in favour of the highest offerer. 9. In the instant case, the second respondent proposed to conduct the public auction and to open the tender application on 6. 1997. The petitioner made a bid for a sum of Rs.2,05,000 for the grant of lease of the impugned quarry for a period of five years, and there after sealed tenders were opened in the presence of the tenderers. 10. The petitioners was represented by his authorised agent Mr.N.R.Sethupathy. But, the third respondent was neither present nor represented by her authorised agent. After opening of the tender applications, it was found that the third respondent had tendered a sum of Rs.3,00,000 towards the lease amount for a period of five years for the lease of the impugned quarry. However, the third respondent was not declared as the highest tenderer as he or his authorised agent was not present at the time of opening the sealed tender and consequently, the lease was not confirmed in his favour. 11. However, the third respondent was not declared as the highest tenderer as he or his authorised agent was not present at the time of opening the sealed tender and consequently, the lease was not confirmed in his favour. 11. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner claims that he should be declared as the highest bidder, as he was prepared to pay 10% of the bid amount and 90% of the bid amount within seven days from the date of confirmation of the said lease. Hence, the above writ petition. 12. Mr.K.M.Santhanagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is entitled for the confirmation as there was an enforceable contract in his favour since the third respondent or his authorised agent was not present at the time of opening of the tender applications as required under the terms of tender/public auction, on account of which, the second respondent could not confirm the lease in favour of the third respondent. He further contends that the absence of the third respondent or his authorised agent at the time of opening of the tender applications cannot be put against the petitioner for enforcing the notification, under which, the petitioner is entitled for the confirmation of the lease. 13.Per contra, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any grant of lease of the quarry unless the auction was confirmed in his favour, and only after the confirmation of the auction in his favour, the petitioner would be required to make the payment of 10% of the bid amount. He further contends that even as per Clause 6(c), if the highest, tenderer or his authorized agent was not present, due to the absence of the highest tenderer or his agent, the lease need not necessary be confirmed in favour of the next highest offerer because the first respondent can also opt for reauctioning the quarry in interest of the revenue of the state as well as the minor mineral development, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus, ignoring such statutory powers of the first respondent. 14. 14. Mr.Muthukumarasamy further contends that the state, being the owner of the privilege of grant of lease of the quarry, have every right either to accept or refuse the grant of lease, taking the revenue of the state or the interest of the mineral development into consideration, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to accept the tender and to confirm and grant the lease in favour of the petitioner. 15. Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 produced the relevant files before the court and contends that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus as his bid is not yet declared as the highest, nor the lease is confirmed in his favour. 16. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 17. This writ petition raises a vital question of con-siderable importance with regard to the power of the Collector to grant or refuse the lease of the quarry and the procedure to be followed by the first respondent while doing so. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted a tender for Rs.2,05,000 for grant of lease of the impugned stone quarry for five years but the same was not declared as the highest. 19. I do find reasons in the contentions of Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy that the petitioner will not have any legal right either to compel the Government to confirm the lease in his favour or to execute the lease deed thereon unless his bid is declared as the highest; he is called upon to deposition the 10% of the amount offered and the lease is confirmed in his favour. It is well settled in law that the State being the owner of the privilege of granting lease of mining operation, shall have discretion either to proceed with the earlier tender-cum-public auction or to go for a fresh notification for a re-auction. When such a domain discretion is vested with the State to decide in the interest of the mineral development or public revenue, there is no justification to direct the first respondent to accept the petitioner’s tender and to confirm the case in his favour. 20. When such a domain discretion is vested with the State to decide in the interest of the mineral development or public revenue, there is no justification to direct the first respondent to accept the petitioner’s tender and to confirm the case in his favour. 20. In this connection, I am obliged to refer the decision of the Anex Court in Ramana v. I.A. Authority of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628: (1979)5 S.C.C. 256 at para 25 which reads as follows: “There was also one other decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972)2 S.C.C. 366: A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1816, which was strongly relied upon on behalf of the respondents. There the respondents were the highest bidders at an auction held by the Orissa Government through the Excise Commissioner for the exclusive privilege of selling by retail country liquor in some shops. The auction was held pursuant to an order dated 6th January, 1971 issued by the Government of Orissa in exercise of the power conferred under Sec.29(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and clause (6) of this order provided that no sale shall be deemed to be final unless confirmed by the State Government who shall be at liberty to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason therefor.” The Government of Orissa did not accept any of the bids made at the auction and subsequently sold the privilege by negotiations with some other parties. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in that case was that the power retained by the Government “to accept or reject any bid without any reason therefor” was an arbitrary power violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g). This contention was negatived by Hegde, J., speaking on behalf of the Court observed (at p. 1822 of A.I.R.): “The Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. Hence quite naturally, the legislature has empowered the Government to see that there is no leakage in its revenue. It is for the Government to decide whether the price offered in an auction sale is adequate. While accepting or rejecting, a bid, it is merely performing an executive function. The correctness of its conclusion is not open to judicial review. Hence quite naturally, the legislature has empowered the Government to see that there is no leakage in its revenue. It is for the Government to decide whether the price offered in an auction sale is adequate. While accepting or rejecting, a bid, it is merely performing an executive function. The correctness of its conclusion is not open to judicial review. We fail to see how the plea of contravention of Art.19(1)(g) or Art. 14 can arise in these cases. The Government’s power to sell the exclusive privilege set out in Sec.22 was not denied. It was also not disputed that these privileges could be sold by public auction. Public auctions are held to get the best possible price. Once these aspects are recognised, there appears to be no basis for contending that the owner of the privileges in question who had offered to sell them cannot decline to accept the highest bid if he thinks that the price offered is inadequate.” It will be seen from these observations that the validity of clause (6) of the Order dated 6th January, 1971 was upheld by this Court on the ground that having regard to the object of holding the auction, namely to raise revenue, the Government as entitled to reject even the highest bid, if it thought that the price offered was inadequate. The Government was not bound to accept the tender of the person who offered the highest amount and if the Government rejected all the bids made at the auction, it did not involve any violation of Art. 14 or 19(1)(g). This is a self-evident proposition and we do not see how it can be of any assistance to the respondents." 21. In T.L. V.Sundaram Granites v. Imperial Granites Ltd., (1997)2 C.T.C. 678 , a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 9. 1997 in W.A.No.480 of 1996 and W.P.Nos.3114 and 3115 of 1996, has held as follows: "So far as Dharambir Singh v. Union of India and others, (1996)6 S. C. C. 702 is concerned we, find no law laid down by the judgment after observing that the state while granting prospective licenses or mining lease, person applied first may be preferred but while exercising such a discretion by the act and rules, public interest and development of minerals has to be taken care of. No applicant has got right, much less vested right, to the grant of mining lease for mining observations operations in any place within the state. But if hasten to add the right to be considered or mining lease or license of mining it cannot be denied solely on the ground that the person has not vested right. It is laid down in J. T. (1996)8 S.C. 613, that in the matter of granting lease, the state is guided by cardinal tenants of fitness keeping in view the public interest and in the interest of development of minerals." 22. If the facts and circumstances of the instant case are tested in the light of the above well-settled principles of law laid down in the above-mentioned decisions, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the confirmation of auction and the grant of lease in his favour merely because, the third respondent, who had quoted Rs.3,00,000 in her tender application, was not present at the time of conducting the public auction and opening of the sealed tenders; because, it is open for the Collector to get the best possible price to go for a fresh notification for re-auction, particularly when there is some higher offer by the third respondent. At the same time, the third respondent is also not entitled for confirmation of the lease of the impugned quarry in his favour a neither she nor her authorised agent was present at the time of the public auction on 6. 1997 and she cannot claim any advantage on her own lapses. 23. That part, clause 6 (c) of the auction conditions provides a discretionary power to the Collector either to accept for the highest bid or tender; if such highest bidder or tenderer is not present at the time of the public auction and opening the tenders, gain, to accept or to refuse the nest highest bid or tender or alternatively to proceed for re-auction, as the case may be. 24. A careful perusal of the records show that the third respondent, by representation dated 6. 1997 itself, had represented that she or her authorised agent could not be present at the time of conducting the public auction and opening of sealed tenders on 6. 1997 as she could not each the place of public auction due to break-down of the bus. 1997 itself, had represented that she or her authorised agent could not be present at the time of conducting the public auction and opening of sealed tenders on 6. 1997 as she could not each the place of public auction due to break-down of the bus. That apart, the also sent a sum of Rs.30,000 being 10% of the bid amount of Rs.3,00,000 along with her representation dated 6. 1997 to show her bona fide, I also find that this letter was received by the second respondent on 6. 1997 itself. Her offer in the tender application, namely, Rs.3,00,000 is admittedly higher than the bid amount of the public auction, namely Rs.2,05,000. 25. In the light of the above representation dated 6. 1997 of the third respondent, the Collector neither confirmed the tender of the third respondent viz., Rs.3,00,000 nor accepted the next highest bid amount of the petitioner viz., Rs.2,05,000 presumably, in the interest of the revenue of the state and to protect the interest of the minor mineral development. 26. I also find an endorsement dated 6. 1997 of the Collector at page 21 of the note file to the effect that the response for the lease amount as quite poor and therefore proposed to call for a re-tender for the impugned quarry also. 27. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is giving undue preference to the claim of the third respondent, as the happens to be the wife of Mr.Kannian, who is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly of Musiri constitutency belonging to the ruling party, and that Collector is acting under political influence is not correct. I am not able to find any reason for such a wild contention, in view of the fact that the amount offered by the petitioner is far lesser than the amount offered by the third respondent. Therefore, it is purely in the public interest to secure more revenue to the state, the Collector has not confirmed the auction in favour of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal exercise of power by the Collector for refusing to confirm the lease of the impugned quarry in favour of the petitioner. 28. Therefore, it is purely in the public interest to secure more revenue to the state, the Collector has not confirmed the auction in favour of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal exercise of power by the Collector for refusing to confirm the lease of the impugned quarry in favour of the petitioner. 28. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason to direct the Collector to confirm the lease of the impugned quarry in favour of the petitioner as the Collector is justified to exercise his discretion to proceed for reauctioning the impugned quarry as I have already held that the third respondent is also not entitled to state her claim for confirmation of the lease in her favour as neither she nor her authorised agent was present at the time of auction on 6. 1997 as required under the conditions. Hence, the Collector is hereby directed to refund the deposits made by the petitioner and the third respondent within two weeks from today and to proceed for re-auctioning the impugned quarry at the earliest possible time. In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed with the direction stated above, However, there will be no orders as to costs.