JUDGMENT : The petitioner is also present in person and was given opportunity to address on facts. Written note of submissions is also furnished by the petitioner. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12-07-2010 and the order dated 01-11-2010. By order dated 12-07-2010 proposed tender for supply of food articles at District Jail, Tikamgarh, for the year 2010-11 as tendered by the petitioner has been returned for the reason that the rates quoted by the petitioner cannot be accepted. By order dated 01-11-2010 the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been rejected with a direction that the security amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded and his bill be settled. Facts briefly are that, the proposal tendered by the petitioner for supply of food articles at District Jail, Tikamgarh, was sent for approval to respondent No. 2-Director General of Jail, Jail Headquarters, Bhopal on 19-06-2010. The proposal was for supply of goods at the rate as was applicable for Sub-Jail, Jatara. The rates as proposed by the petitioner were, however, not accepted by Jail Headquarters as is apparent from communication dated 12-07-2010. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against said rejection has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 01-11-2010. The case of the petitioner is that on 23-03-2010, 09-04-2010 and 20-04-2010 tenders were invited by said Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh for supplying the goods but no-one came forward to bid. Therefore, the Jail Superintendent entered into an agreement with the petitioner, who was supplying at Sub- Jail, Jatara, on the basis of, the consent tendered by the petitioner on 01-06-2010 that he is ready to supply the material at District Jail, Tikamgarh at the rate as applicable at Sub-Jail, Jatara. It is urged that since the offer of the petitioner was accepted, security amount of Rs. 3,53,368/- was furnished on 14-06-2010 and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 5-Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh, on 14-06-2010, which was valid up to 31-02-2011. It is urged that 81 items mentioned in the agreement were required to be supplied at District Jail, Tikamgarh. 3,53,368/- was furnished on 14-06-2010 and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 5-Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh, on 14-06-2010, which was valid up to 31-02-2011. It is urged that 81 items mentioned in the agreement were required to be supplied at District Jail, Tikamgarh. The petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the said agreement the petitioner supplied the material between 14-06-2010 to 12-07-2010 when a letter dated 12-07-2010 was issued by the Jail Headquarters directing the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh, to stop the petitioner from further supply. It was, however, stated therein that if the petitioner agrees to supply the material at the rate applicable at Central Jail, Sagar, then he may be allowed to continue, failing which, re-tender was directed to be resorted to. It is contended that respondent No. 5 having entered into the contract was not justified in backing out from the same unilaterally and the respondents are bound by the terms of the contract. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has led us through various provisions of Rules of Madhya Pradesh Jail Supply Rules, 1968 (for short Rules of 1968) as well as the directions by the Jail Headquarters dated 07-05-2010 to bring home the submissions that in the case, as the present one, no prior approval from Jail Headquarters is necessary in case an agreement is entered into with the Jail Superintendent in the exigency of the situation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically placed reliance on Rule 10 of the Rules of 1968 to bring home his submissions. The respondents on their turn have to submit that the rates as proposed by the petitioner at which the material was to be supplied at District Jail, Tikamgarh, were on higher side, the said proposal was not accepted by the Jail Headquarters. It is urged that since the entire process was at the proposal stage and a proposal unless approved by the headquarters does not get concretised, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of provisional agreement entered into between the petitioner and Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh. It is urged that since the entire process was at the proposal stage and a proposal unless approved by the headquarters does not get concretised, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of provisional agreement entered into between the petitioner and Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh. It is further contended that the respondents have a right to accept or not to accept the proposal and in the instant case since the rates as were tendered at Central Jail, Sagar, were much less, the authority concerned was not under any obligation to have accepted the rates tendered by the petitioner. It is further submitted that in respect of supply of material at jails, the Director General Jail has issued circular on 21-10-2010 in the matter of procedure to be adopted while finalizing agency of supply of goods. It is urged that in respect of financial year 2011-12 the process for fixing the agency has been completed and remains to be finalized by Jail Headquarters. It is urged that the petitioner is also one of the party, who submitted tender for supply of goods at Tikamgarh and the same has been provisionally accepted, whereunder, the petitioner would be liable to supply goods to the tune approximately 70% at Tikamgarh Jail subject to approval/sanction by the Director General Jail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the petitioner, who appears in person, the issue which crops up for consideration is as to whether a provisional agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 5-Superintendent, District Jail, Tikamgarh, would have any binding effect in absence of the approval by the Jail Headquarters. Admittedly, the supply of material for jails in the State of Madhya Pradesh is governed by the Rules of 1968. It is also not in dispute that the delegation of power by the Director General, Jail, vide its order dated 10-10-1996 whereby, the Jail Superintendents/Superintendent, Open Jail/Principal, Jail Training Centre, Sagar/Superintendent, Women Jail, Hoshangabad have been empowered to append the signature on provisional agreement, however, the same has been subjected to final approval by the Jail Headquarters. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968 provides for the procedure of purchase of bulk items by resorting to process of inviting the tenders. Tenders are required to be submitted in form-v appended with the Rules. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968 provides for the procedure of purchase of bulk items by resorting to process of inviting the tenders. Tenders are required to be submitted in form-v appended with the Rules. After resorting to the procedure prescribed under Rule 10 the matter then is sent to Jail Headquarters for final approval under Rule 11. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968 provides for the procedure of purchase of bulk items by resorting to process of inviting the tenders. Tenders are required to be submitted in form-v appended with the Rules. After resorting to the procedure prescribed under Rule 10 the matter then is sent to Jail Headquarters for final approval under Rule 11. Rules 6, 10 and 11 are in the following terms :- " fu;e 6- (,d) vf/kd ek=k esa vko';d [kkn~;kUuksa vkfn dh iwfrZ ds fy;s fu;eksa ls layXu fofgr QkeZ esa rFkk mlesa nh xbZ 'krksZ ij lhy can fufonk;sa( VsUMlZ) vkeaf=r dh tkosaxhA ;s Hkko vxys o"kZ ds twu ekg dh 30 rkjh[k rd oS/k jgsaxs A çR;sd fufonk (VsUMlZ) ds lkFk fufonk dh jde ds 2 çfr'kr ds cjkcj c;kus dh jde Hks th tk;sxh] tks fd Bsdk ns fn;s tkus ds ckn mu fufonkdkjksa dks rRdky ykSVk nh tkosxh] ftudh fufonk;sa( VsUMlZ) ukeatwj dh nh tk;s izR;sd fufonkdkj dks fodz; dj fu"dklu çek.k i= fufonk ds lkFk layXu djuk vfuok;Z gS] lQy fufonkdkj ds ekeys esa c;kus dh jde fufonk( VsUMj) dh 'krksZ ds dk;kZ Uo;u ds fy;s tekur ds #i esa j[k yh tk;sxhA çfrHkwfr tek dk Lo#i çR;sd fufonk lwpuk (VsUMlZ uksfVl) tkjh djus dh rkjh[k rFkk lw{e tkap ds fy;s fufonkvksa (VsUMlZ) dks [kksyus dk le;] rkjh[k rFkk LFkku dh lwpuk Qyd ij yxkbZ tkosxhA iwfrZ dh tkus okyh leLr oLrqvksa dh lqiqnZxh tsy }kj ij gh dh tkosxh rFkk muds rkSy us vkSj ifjogu vkfn ds fy;s fufonk esa mfYyf[kr 'kqYd ls mij dksbZ vfrfjDr 'kqYd ugha fn;k tkosxk ;g 'kqYd fufonkdkj dks ogu djuk gksxkA (nks) fufonk;sa (VsUMlZ) dk;kZy; le; esa dsoy dk;kZy; esa gh xzg.k dh tk;saxh vkSj os fdlh vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh ds fuokl LFkku ij xzg.k ugha dh tk;saxs fu;e 10 tsy v/kh{kd ,salh dk;Z okfg;ksa dks foLrkj iwoZd vkns'k iqfLrdk esa vfHkfyf[kr djsxk vkSj oLrqvksa dh [kjhn ds fy;s vius çLrko tsy egkfujh{kd dks HkstsxkA bl çLrko ds lkFk fuEufyf[kr nLrkos t jgsaxs % - (d) v/kh{kd ds ml vkns'k dh çfr ftlesa dk;Z okfg;ka vfHkfyf[kr dh xbZ gksa A ([k) QkeZ " vk " esa rhu izfr;ksa esa djkjukek tks fufonkdkj }kjk iwjk Hkjk x;k gks] vkSj ftl ij mlus lE;d #i ls gLrk{kj fd;s gksa vkSj rkjh[k Mkyh gks A (x) Bsds dh lEiw.kZ jde ds fy;s 'kks/k {kerk izek.k i= ;k mlds cnys esa 10 çfr'kr uxn çfrHkwfr dh jde tek djus dk çek.kA (?k) Bsds dh lEiw.kZ iwfrZ ds fy;s fu;r fd'rksa ds C;kSjs n'kkZ us okyk fooj.k ftlesa oLrq dk uke lEiw.kZ iwfrZ gsrq fu;r fdLrksa dh la[;k] ek=k vkSj çR;sd fd'r dh iwfrZ dh rkjh[k dk Hkh mYys[k jgsxkA çLrkfor fd'rksa ls fufonkdkj dh lgefr ds çrhd Lo#i bl fooj.k ij fufonkdkj ds rkjh[k ;qDr gLrk{kj djk;s tk;saxs A (M) lacaf/kr oLrqvksa dh [kjhn ds fy;s eatwjh iznku djus gsrq fo'ks"k vkosnu i=A (p) vfufonk lwpuk dh ,d çfr oLrqvksa dh lwph rFkk fufonk QkeZ dh ,d çfr vkSj ewY; fufonk (VsUMj)A (N) vleLr fufonkdkjksa Onkjk lHkh oLrqvksa ds fy;s çLrkfor njksa rFkk rglhynkj] eaMh lfefr vkfn ls çkIr dh xbZ njksa ds O;kSjs n'kkZ us okyk rqyukRed fooj.kA (t) fufonkvksa ds lkFk fufonkdkjksa Onkjk fn;s gq;s foØ; dj fu"dklu çek.k i=A fu;e 11- tsy egkfujh{kd tsy v/kh{kd ls çLrko çkIr gksus ds fnukad ls nks ekg ds vUnj fufonk W.P. No.16027.10 dks eatwj ;k ukea twj dj ldsxkA " The contention of the petitioner that in case of emergency and where provisional arrangement is to be made, no approval is required from the Jail Headquarters is not borne out from the respective rules referred hereinabove. On the contrary, even form-v prescribed under Rule 6 provides for that even the provisional agreement is subject to final approval by the Director General, Jail. Reliance placed upon the circular dated 07-05-2010 is also of no assistance to the petitioner as the same reiterates that only after entering into an agreement, that material can be supplied in respective jails. Agreement which is required to be entered into, in our considered opinion, has to be in accordance with the Rules of 1968 and not otherwise as the rules leave no scope at Superintendent level to finally enter into an agreement as would have any binding effect. In the case at hand since the proposals sent on 19-06-2010 as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1968 read with Rule 6 was not approved by the Jail Headquarters, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a provisional agreement as would bind the respondents to permit the petitioner to supply the material till 30-06-2011. Accordingly, we find no error in the decision dated 12-07-2010 as also in the order passed by the appellate authority on 01-11-2010. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.