Judgment :- 1. M/s. Evershine Exports, a proprietary concern through its attorney prays for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 14.07.2011, cancelling the offer of the petitioner to purchase as is where basis commercial quality stainless steel materials. 2. The auction was fixed as 06.07.2011. The petitioner applied to participate in auction by depositing Earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) as per general terms and conditions of auction, along with letter of intent before the stipulated date. Letter of Intent filed by the petitioner was signed on behalf of the proprietary concern, by its general power of attorney holder. 3. The respondent instead of rejecting the offer of the petitioner , allowed it to participate in the auction and petitioner was declared highest bidder in respect of three lots. 4. Instead of rejecting the bid of the petitioner for want of power of attorney, the petitioner was directed to file the power of attorney executed in favour of Shri Babu Lal Bohra before evaluating the OFA. 5. It is not disputed that in compliance with the email dated 06.07.2011, of the respondent, the petitioner submitted the power of attorney. The respondent instead of evaluating the offer of the petitioner and placing order with him, being the highest bidder returned his Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). 6. The reason for the rejection of the bid of the petitioner is that his power of attorney was not special attorney for participating in E-auction SR-1204, but was a general power of attorney without specifying this particular contract. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the respondent being a Central Government undertaking cannot be allowed to act arbitrary even in contractory matters. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner, that the reason for rejection of the offer, is patently absurd and cannot be accepted, as it is not the case of the respondent, that the power of attorney was not entitled to participate in the auction. 9. Though the power of attorney is to be strictly construed with the reading of the power of attorney leaves no manner of doubt the attorney was authorised to act on behalf of the petitioner with respect to all the auctions and deed with department including auction in question. 10. 9. Though the power of attorney is to be strictly construed with the reading of the power of attorney leaves no manner of doubt the attorney was authorised to act on behalf of the petitioner with respect to all the auctions and deed with department including auction in question. 10. The respondent could not reject the offer, on the ground that the power of attorney was not specific power of attorney only to participate in a specified auction. 11. The other ground of rejection was that power of attorney was blacklisted, this also cannot be a ground to reject the offer of petitioner, as the attorney admittedly was acting on his behalf but on behalf of the petitioner. All the liabilities arising out of the contract were to meet by the petitioner and not by the power of attorney. Once the petitioner was not blacklisted, the highest offer could not be rejected by finding fault with attorney. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore contends that the order of the respondent being totally arbitrary amounts to colourable exercise of power, therefore is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, by contending that the writ petition is rendered infructuous, as Earnest Money Deposited by the petitioner stands refunded to him. 14. It is also the stand of the respondent that the bid of the petitioner was not in order, as on the date of auction, the letter of intent filed by the petitioner did not have supporting power of attorney, to evaluate the offer of the petitioner. 15. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent, that power of attorney was blacklisted, therefore was not eligible to participate in the auction. The action of the respondent in rejecting the power of attorney cannot be faulted with. 16. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The refund of earnest money is not on the asking of the petitioner which could act estoppel to deny him right to challenge the arbitrary action of the respondent in not considering the offer of the petitioner though it is the highest. 17. The Government cannot act against public interest to accept the offer of purchase at much lesser price than the one offered by the highest bidder. 17. The Government cannot act against public interest to accept the offer of purchase at much lesser price than the one offered by the highest bidder. The respondent in Law was to see the eligibility of the petitioner, and not that of his attorney, as the act of attorney is binding on the principal, therefore it cannot be said that offer was not proper. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that on the date of auction letter of intent was not accompanied by the power of attorney, therefore was liable to be rejected, also cannot be accepted, for the reason that it was the respondent who had for scrutiny of the papers, directed the petitioner to file power of attorney or atleast copy, through e-mail for evaluating offer of the petitioner. 19. It is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted the power of attorney as directed, therefore, the offer of petitioner for purchase could not have been rejected on the grounds not sustainable in law. 20. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of rejecting the offer of the petitioner is quashed. 21. The respondent is directed to accept the offer of the petitioner for purchase of the material on receipt of total sale consideration, along with EMD which were refunded to the petitioner by the respondent. The offer amount is directed to be deposited within 15 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.