ORDER Jaiswal, J. -- 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the allotment of shops of Kantaphod, Satwas and Kannod to respondent No.6, on the ground that the allotment has been made contrary to the provisions of clause 18.23 of the gazette notification (Annexure P-2), and the respondents No.1 and 2 had no authority to delegate their power to the respondent No.4 for accepting the offers of the bidder below the reserved price for the year 2016-17, fixed by the Government of M.P. and prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 5 for allotment of those shops and issue of license in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.1 in exercise of power conferred upon him and by virtue of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Rules made therein, issued a notification for allotment of group license of DWSC–5 (Kanataphod), DWSC–10 (Satwas) and DWSC–8 (Kannod), for the year 2016 and 2017. The reserved price as per provision of Clause 9.4 of the gazette notification for Kanataphod, Satwas and Kannod is as under : S.No. Name of Place Amount (In Rs.) 1. Kantaphod 5,97,04,026/- 2. Satwas 4,26,65,589/- 3. Kannod 4,92,96,411/- 3. Gazette Notification No.73 (Annexure P-2) 5.2.2016 issued by Government of M.P. by which the State Government was authorized to reject the offers below the reserved price fixed by State of Madhya Pradesh for the year 2016-17. 4. As per tender notice dated 11.3.2016, the petitioner – firm offered highest price of Rs.5,25,55,555/- for Kantaphod, Rs.3,75,55,555/- for Satwas and Rs.4,51,55,555/- for Kannod. His highest offer was not accepted because the same was below the reserved price. The Description of the shop along with the offer made by the petitioner on 11.3.2016 reads as under : Shops Reserved price for the year 2016-17 Offer made by petitioner on 11.3.2017 Shops Reserved price for the year 2016-17 Offer made by petitioner on 11.3.2017 Kantaphod 5,97,04,026/- 5,25,55,555/- Satwas 4,26,65,589/- 3,75,55,555/- Kannod 4,92,96,411/- 4,51,55,555/- 5. On 18.3.2016, second time tender notice was issued for the same group. The petitioner and respondent No.6 submitted their offers for Kantaphod, Satwas and for Kannod. On 18.3.2016, second time tender notice was issued for the same group. The petitioner and respondent No.6 submitted their offers for Kantaphod, Satwas and for Kannod. The Description of the shop along with the offer made by the petitioner on 18.3.2016 reads as under : Shops Reserved price for 2015-16 Reserved price for the year 2016-17 Offer made by respondent No.6 on 18.3.2016 Offer made by petitioner on 18.3.2016 Kantaphod 5,19,16,544/- 5,97,04,026/- 5,64,99,999/- (made by Respondent No.6.) 5,45,55,555/- Satwas 3,71,00,512/- 4,26,65,589/- 4,05,99,999/- (made by respondent       No.6.) 3,85,55,555/- Kannod ,28,66,444/- 4,92,96,411/- 3,90,55,555/- 6. From perusal of the column 3 and 4, it is not in dispute that all the three offers made by the respondent No.6 and petitioner were below the reserved price fixed for the year 2016-17. On the same set of regulations and policy the respondents No.1 to 5 accepted the tender of the respondent No.6 in respect of two groups, i.e., for Satwas and Kantaphod, which was below the reserved price, but rejected the offer of the petitioner and decided to call another tender for Kannod shop. 7. The offer of respondent No.6 was above the offer submitted by the petitioner in respect of Kantaphod and Satwas group and, therefore, the same was accepted whereas, in respect of Kannod group, the petitioner, who was only bidder, his bid was not accepted. 8. On 26.3.2016, the respondent No.6 made the following offer for Kannod shop : Description of the shop alongwith an amount (26.3.2016) Shops Reserved price for 2015-16 Reserved price for the year 2016-17 Offer Kannod 4,28,66,444/- 4,92,96,411/- 3,86,57,513/- (made by respondent No.6) 9. The bid of the respondent No.6, which was of Rs.3,86,57,515/- has been accepted, as he was sole bidder. 10. It is this action, which has been impugned in the writ petition. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that by accepting the bid offer of respondent No.6, there has been a hostile discrimination between the petitioner and the respondent No.6, which is violation of provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The offers made by respondent No.6, were less than the reserved price and has been accepted by the respondent No.4 is against the provision of clause 18.23 of the gazette notification. 11. The offers made by respondent No.6, were less than the reserved price and has been accepted by the respondent No.4 is against the provision of clause 18.23 of the gazette notification. 11. He has drawn our attention to the order dated 17.3.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2036/2016 and submitted that in that writ petition, he had challenged the action of the respondent by not accepting his highest offer for Kantaphod, Kannod and Satwas group. This Court while disposing of the writ petition passed the following order. Paras 3 to 6 are relevant which reads as under : “3. According to the petitioner, he purchased six tenders forms for six group of 14 country liquor shops and six for foreign liquor shops, situated at Khategaon, Kantaphod, Kannod, Satwas and Nemawar of Dewas District. After depositing earnest money for six groups amounting to Rs.1.41 Crores his bid in respect of four groups was below reserved price fixed by the respondents and, therefore, the same was not accepted, though his bid was the highest. In respect of five groups, i.e., Khategaon, Kantaphod, Kannod, Satwas and Vikrampur, no other persons have submitted their tenders. As per clause 18.23 of the gazette notification issued by Government of M.P., all the offers submitted by the petitioner for five groups were sent to the State Government for taking decision in the matter because the amount offered by the petitioner was below the reserved price. The learned Commissioner, Excise by order dated 13.3.2016, rejected the highest offer on the ground that his bid was below the reserved price and directed for re-auction and fixed the case for re-auction on 18.3.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also submitting his offer in pursuance to order dated 13.3.2016, but the respondents authorities are not adjusting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner earlier and, therefore, the authorities be directed to refund the said EMD forthwith or direct the respondents to accept the same in the fresh offer invited in terms of order dated 13.3.2016. Clause 18.23 is relevant which reads as under : ^^8-23- fnukad 11 ekpZ 2016 fnu 'kqØokj dks f}rh; pj.k esa VsaM+j ds ek/;e ls izkIr vkWQj dk vojksgh Øe esa izR;sd VsaM+j ds vuq:i fooj.k rS;kj fd;k tk,xkA izkIr mPpre vkWQj lacf/kr efnjk nqdku@,dy lewg ds fu/kkZfjr vkjf{kr ewY; ;k mlls vf/kd jkf'k dk gksus ij] mls ftyk lfefr Lohdkj dj ysxhA vU;Fkk fLFkfr esa efnjk nqdkunkj@,dy lewgokj izkIr VsaMjks dk rqyukRed i=d rS;kj dj] bldh lwpuk rRdky vkcdkjh vk;qDr dks nh tk,xhA ?kksf"kRk vkjf{kr ewY; dh rqyuk esa] VsaM+j ds vkWQj dh jkf'k de gksus dh n'kk esa] ftyk lfefr ls izkIr izLrko ij jkT; 'kklu }kjk vko';d fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA ftldh lwpuk vkcdkjh vk;qDr }kjk lacf/kr ftys ds dyDVj dks nh tk,xhA vkcdkjh vk;qDr }kjk vkWQj Lohdkj fd, tkus ds funsZ'k fn, tkus ij] dyDVj VsaMj dh Lohd`fr dh tkudkjh nsaxsA fu;r le; ij vkcdkjh vk;qDr ls funsZ'k dh fLFkfr esa] VsMj }kjk fu"iknu ds f}rh; rj.k ls 'ks"k cph efnjk nqdkuks@,dy lewgksa dk fu"iknu vkcdkjh vk;qDr] }kjk ?kksf"kr@fu/kkZfjr fnukad dks iqu% VsaM+j vkeaf=r dj] fd;k tk,xkA ,sls VsMjksa dk fujkdj.k Hkh mijksDr izko/kku vFkok 'kklu }kjk fufnZ"V O;oLFkk ls gksXkkA^^ 5. As per clause 18.23 of the Notification dated 5.3.2016, the State Government is right in not accepting the offer of the petitioner, which was below the reserved price fixed by the Government. Even otherwise, in contractual matter no writ of mandamus for accepting the highest offers of the petitioner can be issued because highest bidder has no right to claim contract as a matter of right. So far as refund of EMD is concerned, he may file an appropriate application for adjusting/refunding the EMD as per liquor policy framed by the State Government. If any subsequent offer of the highest bidder, which was below the reserved price is accepted then, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.2036/2016 is disposed of. 12. If any subsequent offer of the highest bidder, which was below the reserved price is accepted then, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.2036/2016 is disposed of. 12. He lastly submitted that the respondents No.1 to 5 contrary to the policy accepted the bid of respondent No.6 in violation to clause 18.23 and on identical circumstances on 11.3.2016, bid of the petitioner, which was highest, failed to accept the bid in respect of Kannod group, but to favour the respondent No.6, his sole bid offer was not accepted and again on 26.3.2016, tender was issued just to favour the petitioner and prayed that this writ petition be allowed and respondents No.1 to 5 be directed to allot the shops of all three groups, i.e., Kannod, Satwas and Kantaphod, in favour of the petitioner and issue license. 13. Per contra, Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the tender in respect of the aforesaid group license has been accepted in accordance with sanction/authorization granted by the State Government as per clause 3 and clauses 18.21, 18.22 and 18.23 of the notification dated 5.2.2016 and in-consonance with the subsequent orders passed by the State Government. He submitted that no offer has been accepted by the District Committee. The complete process of acceptance of tender and the further allotment has been made on the basis of authorization/sanction received from the State Government. Even the petitioner has been allotted group license for the shop DWSC-14 Foreign liquor Vikrampur and country Liquor Harangaon, Jiyagaon and Kusmaniya vide order dated 25.3.2016 and DWSC-15, foreign liquor Agurli, country liquor Kamlapur, Devgarh and Tappa Sukliya, vide order dated 30.3.2015 in accordance with authorization/sanction granted by the State Government in that two group licences. The allotment has been made below the reserved price and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the process adopted by the respondents in allotment of the liquor shop, on the same ground in favour of the respondent No.6. The allotment has been made below the reserved price and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the process adopted by the respondents in allotment of the liquor shop, on the same ground in favour of the respondent No.6. In respect of the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are required to accept the offer submitted by the petitioner as per tender notice dated 11.3.2016, at that relevant time, there was no sanction or authorization was received from the State Government and, therefore, tender was issued on 18.3.2016, after receiving the offer an order dated 20.3.2016 was issued by the State Government for allotment of shop as per the procedure, therefore, the earlier offer made by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. The gazette notification required to be read in continuation with the order dated 20.3.2016. It is also pointed out that the offers made by the petitioner in respect of three shops were below the reserved price, therefore, the same has been rejected vide order dated 13.3.2016 and the fresh tenders were invited. The petitioner accepted the same rejection order and participated in the fresh tender invited on 18.3.2016 and, therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be considered on 18.3.2016. The respondent No.6 tenders for the shop Kantaphod and Satwas was accepted as the same were highest and in pursuance of the 3rd tender notice, respondent No.6 gave his offer for Kannod shop and no offer was submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the same and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. 14. Clause 8 of gazette notification dated 5.2.2016 Annexure P-2 and clause 18.23 are relevant which read as under : 8- efnjk nqdkuks dk Lo:i ifjorZu fd;k tkukA 8-1 o"kZ 2016&17 esa ftu ftyksa es leLr efnjk nqdkuksa@,dy lewgksa dk fu"iknu uohuhdj.k ds vHkko esa dsoy VsaM+j }kjk fd;k tk,xkA ,sls ftyks esa LFkkuh; vko';drkuqlkj] jktLo fgr esa ns'kh efnjk dh QqVdj fcØh dh nqdkuksa dk Lo:Ik fons'kh efnjk dh QqVdj fcØh dh nqdkuksa ds :i esa ifjofrZr dj] mudk fu"iknu fons'kh efnjk dh QqVdj fcØh dh nqdku ds :i esa fd;k tk ldsxkA 8-2 ns'kh efnjk dh QqVdj fcØh dh nqdkuksa dk Lo:i] LFkkuh; vko';drkuqlkj jkTkLo fgr esa fons'kh efnjk dh QqVdj fcØh dh nqdku ds :i esa ifjofrZr djus ds fy,] lacf/kr ftys dh ftyk lfefr] ftlesa laHkkx ds mik;qDr vkcdkjh dh Li"V jk;] vfuok;Z :i ls vafdr gks] ds izLrko ij vkcdkjh vk;qDr e/;izns'k }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA 8-3 Lo:i ifjorZu ds QyLo:i ,slh fons'kh efnjk nqdku dk vkjf{kr ewY; fuEufyf[kr dafM+dk Ø-9-5 esa of.kZr vuqlkj ifjxf.kr fd;k tk,xkA 18-23 fnukad 11 ekpZ 2016 dk fnu 'kqØokj dks f}rh; pj.k esa VsaMj ds ek/;e ls izkIr vkWQj dk vojksgh Øe (Descending Order) esa izR;sd VsaMaj ds vuq:i fooj.k rS;kj fd;k tk,xkA izkIr mPpre vkWQj lacf/kar efnjk nqdku@,dy lewg ds fu/kkZfjr vkjf{kr ewY; ;k mlls vf/kd jkf'k dk gksus ij] mls ftyk lfefr Lohdkj dj ysxhA vU;Fkk fLFkfr esa efnjk nqdkuokj@,dy lewgokj izkIr VsaMjks dk rqyukRed i=d rS;kj dj] bldh lwpuk rRdky vkcdkjh vk;qDr dks nh tk,xhA ?kksf"kr vkjf{kr ewY; dh rqyuk esa] VsaMj ds vkWQj dh jkf'k de gksus dh n'kk esa] ftyk lfefr ls izkIr izLrko ij jkT; 'kklu }kjk vko';d fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA ftldh lwpuk vkcdkjh vk;qDr }kjk lacf/kr ftys ds dyDVj dks nh tk,xhA vkcdkjh vk;qDr }kjk vkWQj Lohdkj fd, tkus ds funsZ'k fn, tkus ij] dyDVj VsaMj dh Lohd`fr dh tkudkjh nsaxsA fu;r le; ij vkcdkjh vk;qDr ls funsZ'k izkIr ugha gks ldus dh fLFkfr esa] fu"iknu dh ;g dk;Zokgh LVsVl ij vkxkeh fnol ds fy, LFkfxr jgsxhA blds foijhr vkWQj Lohd`r ugha fd, tkus ds funsZ'k dh fLFkfr VsaMj }kjk fu"iknu ds f}rh; pj.k ls 'ks"k cph efnjk nqdkuks@,dy lewgksa dk fu"iknu vkcdkjh vk;qDr] }kjk ?kksf"kr@fu/kkZfjr fnukad dks iqu% VsaM+j vkeaf=r dj fd;k tk,xkA ,sls VsaM+jks dk fujkdj.k Hkh mijksDr izko/kku vFkok 'kklu }kjk fufnZ"V O;oLFkk ls gksxkA 15. Offer of Rs.3,86,57,513/- made by respondent No.6 was below the offer made by the petitioner of Rs.3,90,55,555/- on 18.3.2016, though the same was below the reserved price for year 2015-16. This shows the highhandedness of respondents No.1 to 5 in the matter of dealing with the State Exchequer. If petitioner offer for Kannod shop was accepted then, they could have received more price, but to bypasss the petitioner, they have adopted a noble method and rejected the offer dated 18.3.2016 of the petitioner in respect of Kannod price and another tender was issued on 26.3.2016 wherein, the offer of respondent No.6 was accepted, which was lower than the offer made by the petitioner. The offer dated 26.3.2016 in respect of Kannod shop of respondent No.6 was below the reserved price of 2015-16 and 2016-17. By this action, the State gave undue benefit to respondent No.6 and caused loss to the State Exchequer in awarding the contract to respondent No.6 in respect of Kannod shop. 16. The offer dated 26.3.2016 in respect of Kannod shop of respondent No.6 was below the reserved price of 2015-16 and 2016-17. By this action, the State gave undue benefit to respondent No.6 and caused loss to the State Exchequer in awarding the contract to respondent No.6 in respect of Kannod shop. 16. Clause 8 of notification dated 21.1.2015 reads as under : 8- vkjf{kr ewY; dk fu/kkZj.k 8-1 o"kZ 2014&15 ds nkSjku ftu ,dy legksa esa fLFkr ns'kh efnjk nqdku ls fons'kh efnjk dh nqdku esa vFkok fons'kh efnjk nqdku ls ns'kh efnjk dh nqdku esa okf"kZd ewY; dk vraj.k vuqer fd;k x;k gSA ,slh efnjk nqdkuksa esa vkns'k tkjh fd, tkus ds fnukad ls] mls fnukad 31 ekpZ 2015 rd fd vof/k ds fy, vraj.k ekudj ¼Hkys gh yk;lsalh }kjk vkns'k tkjh fd, tkus ds mijkar vraj.k ;ksX; okf"kZd ewY; ds fo:) efnjk dk iznk; fy;k x;k gks vFkok ugha fy;k x;k gks½] ,dy lewgksa esa lfEefyr ns'kh efnjk nqdkuksa ,oa fons'kh efnjk nqdkuks dk o"kZ 2014&15 ds fy, okf"kZd ewY; ds fo:) iquxZf.kr (re-calculate) fd;k tk,xkA ftu ,dy lewgksa esa okf"kZd ewY; dk ,slk vUrj.k o"kZ 2014&15 es vuqer ugha fd;k x;k gS ds lkFk&lkFk vU; ,dy efnjk nqdkuksa dk o"kZ 2014&15 ds fy, okf"kZd ewY; ogh jgsxk] ftl okf"kZd ewY; ij os o"kZ 2014&15 ds fy;s fu"ikfnr dh xbZ FkhA 8-2 o"kZ 2015&16 ds fy, ns'kh efnjk ,oa fons'kh efnjk nqdkuksa dk vkjf{kr ewY;] mijksDr dafM+dk 8-1 vuqlkj muds o"kZ 2014&15 ds okf"kZd ewY;@iquxZf.kr (re-calculate) okf"kZd ewY; esa 15 izfr'kr dh o`f) dj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk,xkA 8-3 o"kZ 2015&16 ds fy, ns'kh efnjk nqdkuksa dk Lo:i ifjofrZr dj fons'kh efnjk nqdku ds :i esa fu"ikfnr dh tkus okyh ns'kh efnjk nqdku dk vkjf{kr ewY; mijksDr dfM+dk 8-1 vuqlkj] mlds o"kZ 2014&15 ds okf"kd ewY; esa 40 izfr'kr o`f) dj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk,xkA 8-4 o"kZ 2015&16 ds fy;s mTtSu ftys ds Jh dky HkSjo efnj esa efnjk izlkn dkmUVjksa ls lacf/kr ns'kh efnjk nqdku ds-Mh- xVs ,oa fons'kh efnjk nqdku N=h pkSd dk vkjf{kr ewY; mi;qDr dafM+dk 8-1 vuqlkj] muds o"kZ 2014&15 ds okf"kd ewY; es 20 izfr'kr o`f} dj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk,xkA 17. It is well settled that the disposal of public property partakes the character of a trust in that in its disposal there should be nothing hanky panky and that it must be done at the best price so that large revenue coming into the coffers of the State administration would serve public purpose viz. the welfare state may be able to expand its beneficient activities by the availability of larger funds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again has said that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award to jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. 18. The object of all excise laws is two-fold viz., to raise revenue and to regulate the trade in liquors, which is a nexious substance. The only right of the licensor is to seek enforcement of the terms of contract (which is statutory in nature) and the statutory provisions governing the contract. The consideration aforementioned should be kept in mind while examining complaints of violation of statutory Rules, conditions and terms of contract as well as complaints of lack of reasonable opportunity. 19. The only right of the licensor is to seek enforcement of the terms of contract (which is statutory in nature) and the statutory provisions governing the contract. The consideration aforementioned should be kept in mind while examining complaints of violation of statutory Rules, conditions and terms of contract as well as complaints of lack of reasonable opportunity. 19. Noting dated 13.3.2016, which is at page 25 of the return is relevant which reads as under : ek- ea=h fnukad 11-3-2016 dks izkIr VsaM+j vkWQj esa 339 efnjk nqdkuksa dk izkIr vkWQj ;|fi muds okf"kZd ewY; ls vf/kd gS ysfdu ;s jktLo ds fu/kkZfjr y{; ,oa vkjf{kr ewY; ls de jkf'k ds gSA jktLo ds dqy fu/kkZfjr y{; :i;s 7]281@& djksM+ dh rqyuk esa izkIr vkWQj Lohdk;Z ugha gSA vr% ftu lewgksa ij fnukad 11-3-2016 dks vkjf{kr ewY; ls de jkf'k ds VsaM+j vkWQj izkIr gq, gS vFkok ftu ij vHkh rd dksbZ vkWQj izkIr ugh gqvk gS] jktLo fgr esa mu ij o"kZ 2016&17 ds fy;s ?kksf"kr vkjf{kr ewY; ij iqu% VsaMj izkIr fd, tk,aA vkxkeh frfFk dks tks vkWQj vkjf{kr ewY; ls vf/kd jkf'k ds gksaxs mUgs ftyk lfefr Lohdkj dj fu"iknu vafre djsxhA 'ks"k ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr ea=h ifj"kn~ lfefr }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA ¼ta;r eYkS;k½ ea=h foŸk] okf.kfT;d dj] ;kstuk vkfFkZd ,oa lkaf[;dh ,oa ty lalk/ku 20. From the perusal of the aforesaid noting, the Cabinet Committee ¼ea=h ifj"kn~ lfefr½ is empowered to take decision in the matter. As per noting dated 19.3.2016 and approval given by the competent authority on 20.3.2016, the following decision was taken by the Excise Commissioner in para 6, 7 and 8, which has been duly approved by the concerned administrative minister without taking any approval by the Cabinet Committee. As per noting dated 19.3.2016 and approval given by the competent authority on 20.3.2016, the following decision was taken by the Excise Commissioner in para 6, 7 and 8, which has been duly approved by the concerned administrative minister without taking any approval by the Cabinet Committee. Paras 6, 7 and 8 of noting (Excise Management) dated 19.3.2016 is relevant which reads as under : ^^6- mijksDr ds vfrfjDr 180 ns'kh efnjk nqdkuksa ,oa 84 fons'kh efnjk nqdkuksa ij izkIr VsaM+j esa o"kZ 2015&16 ds okf"kZd ewY; ls 51 izfr'kr rd de jkf'k ds vkWQj izkIr gq, gS rFkk o"kZ 2016&17 ds fy;s vkjf{kr ewY; :-4]865-30 djksM+ dh 1]649 ns'kh efnjk ,oa 692 fons'kh efnjk nqdkuksa ij dksbZ vkWQj izkIr ugh gqvk gSA 7- d`i;k layXu ifjf'k"V&nks esa vfadr tkudkjh ,oa foxr o"kksZ esa VsM+j }kjk efnjk dh QqV dj fcØh dh nqdkuks@,dy lewgksa ds fu"iknu dh dk;Zokgh esa le;≤ ij fy, x, 'kklu fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 18-3-2016 dks 199 ns'kh efnjk ,oa 96 fons'kh efnjk nqdkuks ij VsaM+j esa o"kZ 2015&16 ds okf"kZd ewY; :-501-80 djksM+ ls vf/kd jkf'k ds izkIr mPpre vkWQj :-516-53 djksM+ dks Lohdkj dj] bu efnjk nqdkuksa dk fu"iknu vafre fd, tkus ds fy;s lacf/kr ftyk lfefr;ksa dks funsZf'kr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA ftlls lacf/kr ftyk lfefr;ksa dks 'kklu fu.kZ; vuqlkj fu"iknu dh dk;Zokgh fd, tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tk ldsA lkFk gh jkT; es o"kZ 2015&16 esa lapkfyr] ysfdu vc rd mijksDr vuqlkj fu"iknu ls 'ks"k ns'kh efnjk rFkk fons'kh efnjk nqdkuks ij fnukad 22 ekpZ 2016 fnu exayokj dks muds o"kZ 2015&16 ds ?kksf"kr vkjf{kr ewY;ksa ij lacf/kr ftyk lafefr;ksa }kjk VsaM+j vkeaf=r fd, tk ldsA 8- fnukad 22 ekpZ] 2016 fnu eaxyokj dks ftu ns'kh efnjk rFkk fons'kh efnjk nqdkuksa@,dy lewgksa ij vkgwr VsaM+jks esa izkIr mPpre vkWQj o"kZ 2015&16 ds okf"kZd ewY; vFkok mlls vf/kd jkf'k ds gksxs] mUgs Lohdkj dj] ,slh efnjk nqdkuksa dk fu"iknu vafre ewY; fd, tkus ds fy, lcaf/kr ftyk lfefr;ksa dks vf/kd`r fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA fnukad 22 ekpZ 2016 fnu eaxyokj dks ftu ns'kh efnjk rFkk fons'kh efnjk nqdkuks@,dy lewgks ij VsaM+j esa izkIr vkWQj muds o"kZ 2015&16 ds okf"kZd ewY; ls de jkf'k ds gksaxs] mu ij jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k tk,A ¼jkds'k JhokLro½ vkcdkjh vk;qDr 21. Thus, the allotment of shop made in favour of respondent No.6 in respect of all three shops were below the reserved price and only on the strength of reserved price of 2015-16 that to without taking any approval from the Cabinet Committee. In all fairness the authorities acted contrary to the policy framed under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and rejected the offer of the petitioner by inviting fresh notification to secure the best price available in the market, but every time they rejected the offer of the petitioner to favour the respondent No.6 and on the basis of 2015-16 reserved price awarded the contract whereas there was no such approval by the Cabinet Committee as is evident from the noting dated 13.3.2016 and 20.3.2016. In respect of claim of the petitioner for Kannod and Satwas shops writ petition in respect of offer dated 11.3.2016 has already been disposed of on 17.3.2016. His second offer for the aforesaid two shops were below the offer made by the respondent No.6 and, therefore, there is no illegality in accepting the offer of the respondent No.6 in respect of those two shops. The bid which was of the respondent No.6 did not represent the market price, viewed from all the angles, we are of the view that the respondents No.1 to 5 have no such freedom while disposing of public property. Thus, we instead of quashing the license granted in favour of the respondent No.6 in respect of Kannod shop, direct the respondent No.2 to enquire into the matter and fix the responsibility against the erring officer and recover the amount of difference from them, so that such kind of mistake may not be happened in the future. 22. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.2365 of 2016 is disposed of.