Judgment :- W.P.No. 30523 of 2004 is directed against the proceedings dated 10. 2004 on the file of the second respondent whereby, the bid submitted by the petitioner for allotment of a store shed under code No. TR.020 having an area of 39,772 sq.ft. (with a shed) in the housing unit of Periyar Nagar at Pudukkottai, was rejected. 2. W.P. No. 30524 of 2004 is directed against the proceedings dated 10. 2004 on the file of the second respondent whereby, the bid submitted by the petitioner for allotment of commercial site (S.I. Code No. TR.017) having an extent of 3909 sq.ft. in the housing unit of Periyar Nagar at Pudukkottai, was rejected. 3. Factual matrix necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are as under: .(a) In response to the notification issued by the second respondent for allotment of the public purpose site at Pudukottai neighbourhood scheme TR-020, published in Namadu MGR daily on 26. 2004 as item No. 5(a), the petitioner submitted his bid for allotment of a store shed with vacant site for an area of 39.772 sq.ft., The upset price for the said property has been fixed at Rs. 83,79,943/-and the date of opening of the tender was scheduled to be on 17. 2004. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his bid along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of non-refundable deposit. The sealed covers so received from the tenderers were opened by the second respondent on 17. 2004, and in the public auction, along with the petitioner, two other tenderers also participated. The auction was concluded in favour of the petitioner as he happened to be the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 84,50,000/-. .(b) As per condition no.6 of the auction notification, successful bidder should pay 15% of the offer amount at the auction spot itself and as per the said condition, the petitioner has deposited 15% of the bid amount in cash on 17. 2004 itself and the second respondent has issued a receipt for payment of the said sum of Rs. 12,67,500/-. As per the conditions of sale, balance 35% of the bid amount has to be paid within three weeks from the date of confirmation and the remaining 50% has to be paid within six weeks. Since the petitioner did not receive any reply from the second respondent, he met the said authority on 10. 12,67,500/-. As per the conditions of sale, balance 35% of the bid amount has to be paid within three weeks from the date of confirmation and the remaining 50% has to be paid within six weeks. Since the petitioner did not receive any reply from the second respondent, he met the said authority on 10. 2004 and gave a representation to make the payment of the balance amount. The said representation was followed by series of representations as well as reminders addressed to the respondents. Ultimately, the petitioner received the impugned Order dated 10. 2004 cancelling the bid submitted by the petitioner and aggrieved by the said proceeding, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. W.P. No. 30524 of 2004: (c) In pursuance of the notification published in “Namadu MGR” on 26. 2004 with respect to the proposed tender cum auction for allotment of the commercial site at Pudukottai neighborhood scheme, the petitioner submitted his tender for purchase of an extent of 3,909 sq.ft. of land in Section 8 Code No. TR/017. As per the notification, the upset price for the said property was fixed at Rs. 7,81,800/- and the date of opening of the tender and public auction was scheduled to be on 17. 2004 and in the said auction, the sale was concluded in favour of the petitioner at Rs. 7,84,000/- and immediately, a sum of Rs. 1,17,600/-, being 15% of the bid amount, was deposited by him. .(d) Even though the petitioner approached the second respondent for deposit of the balance amount of 35% as per the stipulation in the tender, the same was not met with success and ultimately, the petitioner received the impugned Order dated 10. 2004 whereby, the bid submitted by the petitioner was cancelled. Accordingly, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. Respondents’ version: 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was contended that in the District of Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu Housing Board developed a comprehensive self-contained composite scheme in three stages and the said scheme covers both residential flats as well as plots for all categories of people. In addition to commercial plots, there were also nursery school, primary school, high school, parks, play grounds, etc. In addition to commercial plots, there were also nursery school, primary school, high school, parks, play grounds, etc. Since financial condition of the Corporation was not sound, they have, decided to sell the remaining available area to public through sealed cover cum open auction to fetch the highest amount. Accordingly, notification was issued in the newspapers by fixing the upset price for each and every plot and it was only the approximate price which was fixed by way of upset price. 5. Due to meticulous planning, location of the plots in prime locality etc., the Board expected high demand and tough competition from the public. But to their shock, there was no demand at all for some of the sites and only few people participated in each auction and there was not much increase in the amount fetched by the first call and subsequent second and third calls. The rates mentioned in the tender as well as in the open auction were much lower than what was expected and accordingly, the Managing Director, on the strength of the power given to him to pass orders in respect of each bid rejected all the offers, as per proceedings dated 30.9.2004 and accordingly, the highest bidders were informed by the second respondent as per letter dated 10. 2004 about the rejection of their offer and they were permitted to get refund of their earnest money deposit. 6. Insofar as W.P.No. 30523 of 2004 was concerned, it was the contention of the respondents that the site covered in the said writ petition was a fully developed site, surrounded by roads on all four sides. The petitioner has quoted just 0.83% over and above the upset price and the number of participants in the open auction were also very few than what was expected by the respondents. The rate quoted by the petitioner was just Rs. 70,057/- over and above the upset price of Rs. 83,79,943/-. When the respondents found that even after due publication there were only two participants including the petitioner, in the auction and the amount quoted was also very negligible when compared to the upset price fixed by the respondents, it was decided to reject the bid and accordingly, the impugned Order has been passed as directed by the first respondent. 7. When the respondents found that even after due publication there were only two participants including the petitioner, in the auction and the amount quoted was also very negligible when compared to the upset price fixed by the respondents, it was decided to reject the bid and accordingly, the impugned Order has been passed as directed by the first respondent. 7. With respect to W.P.No. 30524 of 2994, it was the contention of the respondents that the offer of the petitioner was just 0.92% above the upset price inasmuch as the price quoted by the petitioner was a sum of Rs. 7,81,800 and the said amount was far below the amount expected by the Board and as such, the first respondent being the competent authority, rejected the said offer and cancelled the auction. Arguments of the counsel for petitioners: 8. Thiru. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No. 30523 of 2004 took me through various proceedings of the Respondents including the order passed by the first respondent canceling the auction dated 30.9.2004 and contended that what was stated in the impugned Order was not reason which found mentioned in the order of cancellation of the bid s made by the first respondent. According to the learned senior counsel, the first respondent was carried away by extraneous reasons and the reason as found mentioned in the impugned Order has nothing to do with the rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner. The learned senior counsel also referred to the price chart of the adjoining plots, and submitted that the rate quoted by others for the neighboring plots were also just above than what was fixed as upset price and the respondents also accepted such bid and as such, it is too late for them to contend that there was only negligible increase made by the petitioner in his offer. 9. Thiru. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 30524 of 2994 contended that though it was open to the respondents to accept or reject the offer made by the petitioner, their action should be reasonable and there should be procedural fairness and the respondents being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution were not expected to act like private individuals even in commercial transactions. According to the learned senior counsel, the first respondent cancelled the auction merely on the basis of a complaint given by a former Member of Parliament but on the other hand, a totally different reason was mentioned in the impugned Order. The learned senior counsel, further contended that there was no justification for canceling the auction when the offer given by the petitioner was found to be more than the upset price and there was no better offer for the said property and as such, the respondents were not justified in canceling the entire auction on the basis of the so called complaint given by a politician. Contention of the respondents: 10. Thiru. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the upset price fixed by the second respondent for the property in question were only approximate price so as to get better offers from the public and merely by quoting negligent amount above the upset price, petitioners cannot contend for the position that the respondents were duty bound to accept their offer. It was contended that there was a cartel formed by the bidders and as a result of the agreement entered into between the tenderers, there were only few bids and the first respondent found that the said amount was not up to their expectation and as such, they have cancelled the very tender. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the first respondent has received complaint from a former Member of Parliament with respect to the conduct of auction and though the said complaint was not referred to in the impugned Order, basis of passing the impugned Order was the said complaint, which showed that the property was not sold for the market rate. The learned Additional Advocate General also contended that there was no legal right vested in the petitioners to compel the respondents to accept the bid offered by them and it was up to the respondents to decide as to whether they should sell the property to the petitioners at the rate quoted by them. In short. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that there was no justifiable reason made out by the petitioners to set aside the order impugned in the writ petitions. Point for Consideration: .12. In short. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that there was no justifiable reason made out by the petitioners to set aside the order impugned in the writ petitions. Point for Consideration: .12. The point for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to have their bid accepted, by setting aside the order of rejection of their bid. .Analysis: 13. The property which is the subject matter in both the writ petitions were part of several items proposed to be sold by way of tender cum auction as published in “Namadu MGR” daily dated 26. 2004. The upset price for the property having an area of 39,772 sq.ft., which is the subject matter of W.P.No. 30523 of 2004 has been fixed at Rs. 83,79,943/-. Similarly, the property involved in W.P.No. 30524 of 2004 having an extent of 3909 sq.ft. was fixed at Rs. 7,81,800/-. Petitioners have submitted their bid in pursuance of the notification. As scheduled, public auction was conducted and ultimately, the offer made by the petitioner in the respective writ petitions were found to be the highest. As per tender condition no. 22, the right to accept or reject any offer vests with the Managing Director and it was only on the basis of the said tender condition that the petitioners have submitted their bid. It is also found from the counter affidavit that there were only few bidders for the auction in question. 14. The bid submitted by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that the price offered by them were not up to the expected price. The said reason has been disputed by the petitioners on the ground that the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.9.2004 cancelling the auction shows a totally different reason inasmuch as according to the said proceeding, the reason for rejection was stated to be on account of the complaint received from a former Member of Parliament. 15. Respondents being a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot act like dictators and their action should be fair and they should also divulge everything and there should not be any attempt to withhold the actual reasons which weighed with them in taking a particular decision. As observed by the Apex Court in Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corpn. As observed by the Apex Court in Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corpn. AIR 1990 SC 1031 L1990)3 8CC 752, every action of the State or instrumentality of the State in exercise of its executive power must be informed by reason and in appropriate cases, actions un-informed by reasons may be questioned as arbitrary. Where there is arbitrariness in Stare action of entering or not entering into contracts. Article 14 springs up and judicial review strikes such an action down. It was also indicated in the said decision by the Apex Court that whatever be the activity of the public authority, in such monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a governmental action even in the matters of entering or not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. The Apex Court also observed that even though the right of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract. are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination in the type of the transactions and nature of the dealings. 16. The first respondent having taken a decision to cancel the auction on the basis of a complaint preferred by a former Member of Parliament, should have indicated the said reason in the impugned order communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners were not aware of the nature of complaint preferred by the former Member of Parliament and totally a different reason was mentioned in the impugned Order. The respondents being public officers are not expected to play such hide and seek game when it comes to deal with citizens even in contractual matters. .17. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, there was no attempt made to project the reasons which weighed with the Managing Director to cancel the auction. In case the first respondent has cancelled the auction on account of the complaint lodged by the Former Member of Parliament, nothing prevented him from disclosing those reasons in the impugned order. Upright Civil Service: 18. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In case the first respondent has cancelled the auction on account of the complaint lodged by the Former Member of Parliament, nothing prevented him from disclosing those reasons in the impugned order. Upright Civil Service: 18. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Managing Director of the Corporation is an officer of the Government deputed to the Board to function as such for a particular period. The proceeding dated 30.9.2004 shows that the Managing Director who took the decision was an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service. The officers of the Government as well as the instrumentalities of the Government should be bold and must act with courage and conviction. An effective and committed civil service is an essential requirement in any democratic system of Government. The commitment of the Government servants should be to the people of India, as all are accountable to the people. The motto should be to serve the people and the very term ‘public servant’ conveys the service expected from the Government Officials. The implementation of the Government policy also lies with the civil servants. Whatever action taken by the government for the welfare of the people and particularly the poor, downtrodden and the weaker Sections of the society would be met with success only in case the government officials implement the welfare measures with a social commitment. Even a very popular Government would become unpopular in case the public servants project a different picture of the Government before the public. Very often, laudable policies of the Government comes to a standstill on account of the too technical approach adopted by the bureaucracy. The Government is the major litigant in our country and in case the Government officials take little effort to look into the problems with a positive approach many unwanted litigation could be avoided. The people are dragged from pillar to post on account of the lethargic attitude of some of the officials. We are also coming across many a public servants who does everything to redress the grievances of the common man. We need such committed government servants for the development of our nation as otherwise the condition of the poor would be miserable. What is required is a change in the mind set. We are also coming across many a public servants who does everything to redress the grievances of the common man. We need such committed government servants for the development of our nation as otherwise the condition of the poor would be miserable. What is required is a change in the mind set. In case the public servants approaches the issued with a social purpose and social commitment by reminding themselves that the people are the supreme power, it would be possible for the Civil Service to regain its charm. 19. The Apex Court in Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. V. Mahboobunnissa Begum and Others AIR 2001 SC 2361 : (2001)6 SCC 238 strongly deprecated and expressed deep concern about the officers of the government making false averments before Court of Fairness in state action: law and observed thus: “14. … … It is a pity that a senior officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government makes false averments before a Court of law. More than anybody else the Government and its officers are expected to be honest with Courts of law and not take up a patently false stand. If an officer of this rank cannot be honest with the Court then one wonders how he can be trusted to hold such a high position.” 20. In a recent decision in Atma Linga Reddy and Others. V. Union of India and Others, (2008)7 SCC 788 : (2008) 7 MLJ 152, the Apex Court again underlined the need to place entire facts by the public authority before Court and observed thus at p. 191 of MLJ: “52. … Respondents 3 is “State” and a public authority. This Court, therefore, obviously expects from such authority to place all the facts before this Court so as to enable the Court to consider them and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law….” 21. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Another v. Union of India and Another 2005 (8) Scale 389 the issue involved before the Apex Court was the appointment to the post of Chief secretary in the State of U.P. and the Apex Court underlined the necessity of a fair procedure in the matter of posting higher officials in Government service and observed thus: “20. A time has come when the postings of officers holding sensitive posts should be done in transparent manner giving no scope for any grievance.” Scope of Judicial Review: 22. The extent of judicial review in contractual matter was considered by the Apex Court in M.D.,H.S.I.D.C. and Others v. Hari Om Enterprises and Another (2008) 6 MLJ 691, wherein it was observed thus at p. 701 of MLJ: “37. It may be true that ordinarily in a matter of enforcement of a contract qua contract, a writ Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, it is also trite that where the action of a State is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being wholly unfair and unreasonable, the writ Court would not hesitate to grant relief in favour of a person, where both law and equity demands that such relief should be granted.” 23. The Apex Court in Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 1962 : (2004) 4 SCC 19 : (2004) 4 MLJ 1 indicated the extent of judicial review in respect of contractual transaction, in which Government was a party and observed thus at p. 4 & 5 of MLJ: “9. It is well settled now that the Courts can scrutinize the award of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial review in such matters. The point as to the extent of judicial review permissible in contractual matters while inviting bids by issuing tenders has been examined in depth by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India. After examining the entire case-law the following principles have been deduced: (SCC pp.687-88,para 94) 94. The principles deducible from the above are: .(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. .(2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. .(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. .(2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. .(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. .(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. .(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. .(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.” 24. Though the reasons found mentioned in the impugned Order was not the reason which weighed with the first respondent to cancel the auction, still the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to accept their bid. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.” 24. Though the reasons found mentioned in the impugned Order was not the reason which weighed with the first respondent to cancel the auction, still the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to accept their bid. The upset price fixed by the second respondent for the property in question cannot be said to be the actual market rate. There was no indication in the auction notification to the effect that upset price so fixed by the second respondent was with reference to the actual rate or the rate prevailing in the locality. There was nothing wrong in the respondents, being the owner of the property, to expect better price for their property and nobody, much less the petitioners, can compel them to part with the property for a particular amount though the said amount was found to be above the upset price. So many factors do weigh with the authorities in fixing the upset price and while considering the bid also, the authorities were expected to look into various factors. Their main aim being one to get the best price. 25. It is common knowledge that the price of the property often fluctuates and what was the rate fixed earlier need not be the price at a later point of time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents having fixed the upset price were not entitled to expect better price for the property and the cancellation of the auction for want of non receipt of better offers were not justifiable. 26. The bids were submitted and the public auction was conducted on the basis of the terms and conditions of the auction notification. The petitioner has submitted his offer only as per the said notification. Those terms and conditions are binding both on the petitioner as well as on the respondents. The essential term of the contract were all made mentioned in the notification itself. As per the notification, the bid submitted by the tenderer was subject to confirmation by the first respondent. The bid submitted by the petitioner was only an offer and there was nothing to indicate that the said offer was accepted by the respondents to make the transaction a conclude contract. As per the notification, the bid submitted by the tenderer was subject to confirmation by the first respondent. The bid submitted by the petitioner was only an offer and there was nothing to indicate that the said offer was accepted by the respondents to make the transaction a conclude contract. The first respondent being the authority to take a decision with respect to the confirmation of the tender, it cannot be said that the said respondent has to take a decision to confirm the bid by taking into account the offer received, which was above the upset price. It is upto the first respondent to accept the bid submitted by the petitioners. Of course, the first respondent cannot take an arbitrary decision or a discriminatory treatment in respect of some of the participants. The first respondent has decided to cancel the auction and to go for fresh auction and in the impugned Order issued to the petitioners, it was indicated that the price expected by the respondents were not received in the auction. 27. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 30523 of 2004 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India (FCI) v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries AIR 1993 SC 1601 and contended that the bid submitted by the petitioner being the highest, should have been accepted by the respondents and the power to reject the tender cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 28. In Food Corporation of India (FCI) v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court was in respect of the mode adopted by the FCI for the purpose of awarding tender for sale of tocks of damaged food grains. Originally, FCI resorted to the method of tender and the tender submitted by the first respondent in the said case was the highest. However, the same was not accepted by FCI and they have negotiated the matter with the tenderers and in the said negotiation, they got better offers and at that point of time, the party who made the highest offer filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that FCI having accepted the highest tender submitted by him was not expected thereafter to dispose of the stocks by subsequent negotiations, rejecting the highest tender on the ground that the highest bid was obtained by negotiation. Even though the said plea was accepted by the High Court, in the appeal preferred by the FCI, the Apex Court dismissed the writ petition and observed thus: “7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair play in action. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. 8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system this manner and to this extent.” 29. It is evident from the judgment of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India (FCI) v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra) that the Apex Court held that the object of inviting tenders for disposal of a commodity was only to procure the highest price, while giving equal opportunity to all the bidders and the idea to procure the highest bid for the commodity was undoubtedly in the public interest. The Supreme Court also upheld the action taken by the Food Corporation to negotiate the rate between the tenderers and held that inadequacy of the price offered in the highest tender would be a cogent ground for negotiating with the tenderers giving them equal opportunity to revise their bids with a view to obtain the highest available price. 30. Admittedly, the auction was cancelled before confirmation and as such, no right accrued on the-petitioners to contend for the position that they were entitled to rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. .31. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another AIR 2004 SC 4299 : (2004) 8 SCC 671 : 2004 AIR SCW 4815 for his contention that the value of the property and the upset price were not synonymous but they have different meaning. The issue before the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another (supra) case was about the upset price fixed for the sale which was found to be very low compared to the prevailing market price. The issue before the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another (supra) case was about the upset price fixed for the sale which was found to be very low compared to the prevailing market price. In such circumstances, the Apex Court referred to the judgment, of this Court in B. Susila and Another v. Saraswathi Ammal and Others AIR 1970 Madras 357, wherein it was held that fixation of upset price made indication of the probable price which the land may fetch from the point of view of the intending bidders. It was also indicated in the said decision that notwithstanding the fixation of upset price and notwithstanding the fact that a bidder has offered an amount higher than the reserve/upset price, the sale was still open to challenge on the ground that the property has not fetched the proper price and as such, the sale be set aside. In fact, the said judgment supports the case of the respondents inasmuch as even according to the respondents, the upset price was only an approximate price and when they found that they have not received the correct price, they have cancelled the auction. .32. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Master Marina Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd and Another AIR 2005 SC 2299 : (2005) 6 SCC 138 for his contention that the judicial review is very limited in the matter of contractual transactions. In the said case, the Apex Court after surveying the decisions pertaining to judicial review on administrative decisions, summarized the legal position thus: .“12. After an exhaustive consideration of a large number of decisions and standard books on administrative law, the Court enunciated the principle that the modern trend points of judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. It was also pointed out that quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.” .33. The learned Additional Advocate General also brought to my notice a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court dated 212. 2005 in W.P.No. 33882 of 2004 with respect to the very same notification challenging the order passed by the respondents to cancel the auction. The bone of contention in the said Writ Petition was also about the cancellation of the tender on the basis of the complaint given by a former Member of Parliament. The learned Judge on a perusal of the file found that the successful bidder in the auction formed a syndicate and there was exchange of money and the property was auctioned for a low price and observed that the public interest was shown to be involved and the Housing Board was expecting higher revenue than the one fetched and as such, it cannot be said that the Housing Board was not right in rejecting the bid as well as for the cancellation of the auction. The said decision is clearly applicable to present case inasmuch as the issue’ involved in the said Writ Petition was in respect of the very same petitioner and the reasons found in the said impugned Order was also the same as in the present matter. 34. The cancellation of the tender was made by the first respondent before confirmation of the bid submitted by the petitioners and as such, no right accrued to the petitioners. The bid was only an offer subject to confirmation by the first respondent and ultimately, the second respondent rejected the bid by canceling the very auction and it cannot be said that the first respondent was not justified in canceling the auction. 35. The Apex Court in Valji Khimji & Co. The bid was only an offer subject to confirmation by the first respondent and ultimately, the second respondent rejected the bid by canceling the very auction and it cannot be said that the first respondent was not justified in canceling the auction. 35. The Apex Court in Valji Khimji & Co. v. O.L.H. Nitro Product (Guj) Ltd. 2008 (11) SCALE 287 while considering the importance of confirmation and the concluded sale, observed thus: “35. In the first case mentioned above, i.e. where the auction is not subject to confirmation by any authority, the auction is complete on the fall of the hammer, and certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser. However, where the auction is subject to subsequent confirmation by some authority (under a statute or terms of the auction) the auction is not complete and no rights accrue until the sale is confirmed by the said authority.” Conclusion: 36. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently W.P.M.P. No. 36999 of 2004 is also dismissed.