JUDGMENT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this writ which fails and is dismissed in limine. By filing this writ, the petitioner seeks to challenge in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a reversionary order passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain, dated 8.10.2002 (Annexure P-8). It appears that petitioner was one of the tenderer for leasing out one Tank for fishing. The respondent No. 1 had also applied for the same tender. It was eventually given to respondent No.1 by Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner became aggrieved of the same and, therefore, challenged it inter alia on the ground that respondent No.1 was a defaulter and hence, it should not have been given to him. This issue was investigated by the Collector before whom the complaint was made at the first instance and it was found to be baseless. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Commissioner and reiterated his complaint by contending that since the respondent No.1 was an old defaulter and hence in terms of the tender condition, their tender could not have been considered. The Commissioner also found no basis in this, giving rise to filing of this writ petition. I have gone through the order passed by the Collector and Commissioner. The order impugned is quite a reasoned one and does not call for any interference. The question, whether respondent No.1 was a defaulter or not ? was a question of fact. It was not necessary for the petitioner to have proved it by tendering adequate evidence of respondent No.1 being a defaulter. No evidence was brought before the Collector or even before the Commissioner or even before this Court. The documents said to be relied upon by the petitioner do not relate to the respondent No.1 but they relate to some other society. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy this Court as to how and on what basis it is being alleged that respondent No.1 was a defaulter and has incurred a disqualification for submitting the tender. Mere allegations that a particular tenderer is a . defaulter, is not enough. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy this Court as to how and on what basis it is being alleged that respondent No.1 was a defaulter and has incurred a disqualification for submitting the tender. Mere allegations that a particular tenderer is a . defaulter, is not enough. It is required to be proved with reference to a particular evidence and fact, which must clearly indicate that there exists a default on the date when the tender was being submitted. In the absence of any evidence, both the authorities below (Collector and Commissioner) were perfectly justified in rejecting the complaint made by the petitioner. Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed, resulting in upholding of orders passed by the authorities below.