Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19. 7. 2007 (Annexure p-3) by which the respondent No. 2 awarded the contract of collection of daily and weekly Bazar Fees for the remaining period of the year 2007-08 in favour of respondent No. 3. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner,the respondent No. 2 Municipal Council hoshangabad issued a notice of public auction to lease-out the right of collection of Bazar fees. Pursuant to the said notice he and one other person participated in the auction bid. The petitioner was the highest bidder on 16. 7. 2007 with offer of Rs. 5,56,000/ -. He alleges that though he stood highest but his bid was not accepted and on 19. 7. 2007 vide impugned order the application of the third respondent has been illegally and arbitrarily accepted and contract has been awarded. ( 3. ) THE Municipal Council filed return and have produced the original record for perusal. According to the Municipal Council during the previous year of 2006-07 the contract for the collection of the Bazar fees was given to a private Contractor for an amount of Rs. 8,90,000/ -. For the year 2007-08 initially no contract was awarded to any private person and the collection was done by the Municipal Council itself through its employees. Subsequently, it was observed that the collection was less as compared to the collection made in the previous years during the same period. In order to avoid financial loss to the Municipal Council the decision was taken to award the contract for collection of Bazar Fees for the remaining period through private contractor by inviting bids through public auction. For the said auction offset price was fixed as rs. 6,90,000/-keeping in view the contract amount of the previous year and also keeping in view the remaining span of the period. ( 4. ) THE auction as aforesaid continued from 7. 7. 2007 to 16. 7. 2007 in order to fetch the highest amount. However, the price could not exceed rs. 5,56,000/-as offered by the petitioner. The petitioners highest offer being much less than the offset price fixed for the purpose a decision was taken by the Municipal Council not to accept the petitioners offer and continue with the auction. On 18. 7. 7. 2007 in order to fetch the highest amount. However, the price could not exceed rs. 5,56,000/-as offered by the petitioner. The petitioners highest offer being much less than the offset price fixed for the purpose a decision was taken by the Municipal Council not to accept the petitioners offer and continue with the auction. On 18. 7. 2007 the third respondent offered the price of Rs. 6,90,000/- which was the offset price. Taking note of the difference in the maximum offer received till then and the price offered by the third respondent, a decision was taken by the Municipal Council to accept the offer of the third respondent, and accordingly, the order dated 19. 7. 2007 was issued accepting the offer of the third respondent. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in my considered view the decision of the Municipal Council to accept the offer made by the third respondent cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. ( 6. ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners offer was only Rs. 5,56,000/-which was less than the offset price. Inspite of the repeated opportunities from 7. 7. 2007 to 16. 7. 2007 the petitioner offered the price for an amount of rs. 5,56,000/-which was much less to the offset price. Thereafter during the continuation of the auction on 18. 7. 2007 the third respondent made an offer of Rs. 6,90,000/-which was much higher than the offer made by the petitioner and the offer was matching with the offset price also. In the circumstances the decision to accept the offer of the third respondent was taken in the interest of the Municipal Council to earn more revenue. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the non acceptance of the petitioners offer and acceptance of offer of the third respondent cannot be said to be a decision to favour the third respondent. The petitioner was given full opportunity from 7. 7. 2007 to 16. 7. 2007 to submit his offer. He participated but restricted his offer to only Rs. 5,56,000/-which was much less than the offset price. The petitioner was given full opportunity from 7. 7. 2007 to 16. 7. 2007 to submit his offer. He participated but restricted his offer to only Rs. 5,56,000/-which was much less than the offset price. In the circumstances if the Council has taken a decision not the accept the petitioners offer and to accept the offer made by the third respondent which was the maximum price offered by anybody and which was in tune to the offset price, no mala fide or colourable exercise of power is found in the action and the decision of the second respondent. ( 8. ) ACCORDINGLY, no case for interference is made out in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 9. ) THE petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with cost of rs. 2000/ -.