Holding

The State Government, under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, validly cancelled the auction; the highest bidder had no vested right until the Chairman’s acceptance, and the High Court’s interference was ultra vires.

Summary

The Rajasthan Housing Board conducted an auction of commercial plots in 2002, where G.S. Investments was the highest bidder. After a news report alleged that the auction was bungled and prices were far below market rates, the State Government, exercising powers under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, stayed the auction, suspended the officials involved and directed that the auction be cancelled and a fresh one be held. G.S. Investments filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation; the Rajasthan High Court set aside the cancellation and ordered the Board to consider the bidder’s representation and issue a demand note for the balance amount. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the State Government was fully empowered to cancel the auction, that the highest bidder did not acquire any vested right until the Chairman’s acceptance, and that the High Court’s interference was erroneous and beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court orders were set aside, the contempt proceedings dismissed and the deposit refunded to the bidder.

Issues considered

The scope of power conferred on the State Government by Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 to direct cancellation of an auction and order a fresh auction.
Whether the highest bidder at a public auction acquires any vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour before the Chairman’s acceptance.
Whether the High Court could validly interfere under Article 226 in cancelling the auction, given considerations of fairness and public interest.
Whether contempt proceedings initiated against the Housing Board were justified.

Subjects

auction cancellationvested rightadministrative lawjudicial reviewpublic interestcontempt proceedingsSection 60Rajasthan Housing Board ActArticle 226

Judgment

A RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. !r
\(

G.S. INVESTMENTS AND ANR.

OCTOBER 31, 2006

B [G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]

Rajas than Housing Board Act, 1970-Section 60-Auction of plots by
Housing Board-Cancellation of auction by State Government since auction '
not fairly conducted-Order passed to hold fresh auction-Challenge to, by
c highest bidder-Held: Highest bidder did not acquire any vested right to
have auction concluded in his favour since the Chairman of Housing Board

D
having final authority regarding acceptance of the bid did not pass order
to that effect-Auction proceedings could always be cancelled-State
Government was fully empowered to cancel the auction, direction being
issued in public interest, thus interference by High Court not called for-
-
Order of High Court set aside-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226.

Appellant No. I-State Housing Board carried out auction of commercial
plots. Respondent no. I was the highest bidder. Thereafter, news report was
published regarding bungling done in the auction. State Government
E summoned the records and stayed all the further proceedings relating to
auction. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned officers
and they were placed uni!er suspension. Direction was issued that no auction
would be conducted through any agency. State Government considered the
.report of the Financial Commissioner which showed that in the past, plots in
the said area had fetched the price almost double of the price offered by the
F
respondent no 1 and thereafter, passed an order disapproving the auction and
directed issuance of fresh auction. Appellant communicated respondent No.
1 that the auction was cancelled and it could seek refund of the deposit amount.
Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition. The order cancelling the auction was
quashed and appellant was directed to consider representation of respondent
G and issue demand note of balance amount. Appellant filed appeal which was
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 is
H 868 .-\ --<.
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD r G.S. INVESTMENTS 869

couched in very wide and clear language. It empowers the State Government A
to give directions to the Housing Board as in its opinion are necessary or
expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The section further enjoins
that it shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions. Therefore,
the State Government was fully empowered to issue the directions whereby it
disapproved the auction held and no exception can be taken to such a course
of action. The directions having been issued in the interest of the Housing B
Board to generate revenue and to augment its finances, it cannot be faulted
with on any ground.1874-A-BI

t.2. The auction notices contained a condition to the effect that the
Chairman of the Housing Board shall have the final authority regarding C
acceptance of the bid. In view of this condition in auction notice, it is obvious
that a person who had made the highest bid in the auction did not acquire any
right to have the auction concluded in his favour until the Chairman of the
Housing Board had passed an order to that effect. The Chairman could not
exercise his power in an arbitrary manner but so long as an order regarding
final acceptance of the bid had not been passed by the Chairman, the highest D
bidder acquired no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour
and the auction proceedings could always be cancelled. 1874-B-EJ

laxmikant v. Satyawan, 11996) 4 SCC 208, relied on.

2. The sale of plots by the State Housing Board by means of an auction E
is essentially a commercial transaction. Even if some defect was found in the
ultimate decision resulting in cancellation of the auction, the court should
exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution with
great care and caution and should exercise it only in.furtherance of public
interest. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in F
order to decide whether it should interfere with the decision of the authority.
In the instant case, there was enough material before the State Government
to show that in the past plots in the area had fetched a price ofRs.10, 000/-
per square meter and the highest bid made by the respondent in the instant
case was nearly half, i.e., Rs. 5750/- per square meter, which clearly indicated
that the auction had not been conducted in a fair manner. If in such a case the G
State Government took a decision to disapprove the auction held and issued a
direction for holding of a fresh auction, obviously the said decision was taken
in larger public interest. High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ
petition and in not only issuing a direction for consideration of the
representation but also issuing a further direction to the appellant to issue a H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A demand note of the balance amount which virtually amounted to confirmation
of the auction in favour of the respondent which was not the function of the
High Court Thus, the orders passed by Single Judge and Division Bench of
the High Court are clearly erroneous in law and set aside. (878-A-D(

Master Marine Services (P) ltd. v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (P.) Ltd.,
B 12oosf 6 sec 138, relied on.

3. Respondent initiated contempt proceedings against the appellants in
which Single Judge of High Court passed an order observing that the order
passed by the court on 4.8.2004 had not been complied with in letter and spirit
•.
C and a further direction was issued to comply with the said order within two
weeks. The material placed before this Court shows that the appellant No. I
had issued a notice to the respondent and after giving a personal hearing on
the next day, it rejected its representation. Thus, there was no occasion for
initiating any contempt proceedings against the appellants. (878-0-F(

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4608 of2006.

From the Judgments and Orders dated 23.9.2004, 17.2.2005 and interim
Order dated 4.4.2005 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur t
Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 589/2004, D.B. Civil Review
Petition No. 25/2005 and Contempt Petition. No. 296/2004 in S.B. Civil W.P. No.
E 34 I5/2002 respectively.

Bharat Vyas, Maninder Singh, Angad Mirdha and Gaurav Sharma for
the Appellants.

Arun Bhardwaj, Manish Sharma, Amit Bhardwaj and Anil Nag for the
F Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by {

G.P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.

G 2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgments
and orders dated 4.8.2004 of a learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court
by which the writ petition filed by respondent No. I Mis. G.S. Investments ":-
was disposed of with certain directions and also the order dated 23.9.2004
passed by the Division Bench by which the special appeal preferred by the
appellants against the said order was dismissed at the admission stage. The
H appellants have also challenged the order dated 4.4.2005 which was passed ;, r
RAJASTllAN HOUSING BOARD r. G.S. INVESTMENTS [GP MA THUR. J.] 871
.... in the contempt petition initiated by the respondent No. I. A
3. The appellant No. I Rajasthan Housing Board published an auction ·f
I

notice on 3.2.2002 for auction of 50 commercial plots in the Mansarovar
Scheme, which was followed by another auction notice dated 19.2.2002. The
auction was conducted on 20.2.2002 in which M/s. G.S. Investments
(respondent No. I) made the highest bid @ Rs.5750/- per square meter. A B
news item was published in some newspaper that large scale bungling had
been done in the auction due to which the price fetched for the plots in
question was much below the market rate. The State Government issued a
direction on 22.2.2002 summoning the records and staying all further
proceeding relating to auction of the plots. Thereafter, an order was passed
by the State Government on 20.3.2002 directing that the officers of the
c
Rajasthan Housing Board, who were responsible for conducting the auction,
be placed under suspension and in future no auction shall be conducted
through the agency of Satish Auction House which had conducted the
auction on 20.2.2002 or through any other auction agency. After a detailed
consideration of the matter, including the report of the Financial Commissioner D
which showed that in the past plots in the said area had fetched a price of
Rs. I0,000/- per square meter, the State Government passed an order on 3.4.2002
disapproving the auction held on 20.2.2002 and a further direction was issued
for holding a fresh auction. On 23.4.2002 the appellant No. I sent a
communication to respondent No. I that the auction held on 20.2.2002 had
been cancelled and it may produce the original receipt regarding deposit of
E
the amount so that the same may be refunded to it. Feeling aggrieved by the
aforesaid communication, the respondent No. I Mis. G.S. Investments filed
a writ petition in the High Court which was admitted by a learned single Judge
on 29.5.2002 and an interim order was passed that in the meanwhile no order
prejudicial to the writ petitioner shall be passed. The writ petition was F
contested by the appellant on various grounds by filing a counter affidavit.
The learned single Judge by a short order dated 4.8.2004 disposed of the writ
petition and the relevant portion of the order is being reproduced below:

"I have carefully examined the orders impugned. It appears that no
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondents G
whereas the petitioner is willing to deposit the balance amount
according to the terms and conditions. Consequently, the impugned
orders dated 23.4.2002 and 2.5.2002 are hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before the
• respondents. The respondents are directed to consider the
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A representation of the petitioner and shall issue the demand note of
balance amount after filing of representation by the petitioner within
a period of one month.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed
of."
B
The appellant preferred a special appeal against the order of the learned single
Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the same
at the admission stage on 23 .4.2004 observing as under:-
, '

"Considering the fact that the direction was given on the facts that
c there was open auction wherein the writ petitioner was highest bidder
and he had deposited initial amount. There is no allegation of the
appellant that auction in question was in collusion with the officers,
who conducted auction proceedings and the writ petitioner. In absence
of such allegation and material to support that there was collusion
between the authorities who conducted the auction proceeding, we
D do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of
the learned single Judge.
f
Consequently, this special appeal is dismissed at admission stage."

4. Learned counsel for. the appellant Rajasthan Housing Board has
E submitted that the respondent Mis. G.S. Investments had merely made the
highest bid in the auction held on 20.2.2002 and a highest bidder in an auction
does not acquire any legal right to have the auction concluded in his favour.
Serious allegations were made of unholy alliance between the officers of the
Housing Board, the auctioning agency and the respondent No. I and taking
F notice of the same the State Government had stayed further proceedings in
the matter and after consideration of the report of the Financial Commissioner
which showed that in the past plots in the said area had fetched the price f
ofRs.10,000/- per square meter, which was almost double of the price which
had been offered by the contesting respondent and also other material, the
State Government had issued a direction for initiating disciplinary proceedings
G against the concerned officers and had also passed an order disapproving the
auction held on 20.2.2002. The State Government had taken the said action
in exercise of power conferred by Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board
Act, 1970. In view of the order passed by the State Government a communication
was sent to the contesting respondent on 23.4.2002 that the auction held on
H 20.2.2002 had been cancelled and it was asked to produce the original receipt ;
RAJAS THAN HOUSING BOARD 1·. G.S. INVESTMENTS [G.P. MA THUR, J.] 873
. so that the amount deposited by it may be refunded. Learned counsel has A
further submitted that auction of plots by the Housing Board was purely a
commercial transaction and the State Government having come to the
conclusion that the auction had not been conducted in a fair manner and the
price fetched in auction was very low, a decision had been taken to cancel
the auction which was held earlier and to hold a fresh auction. The decision
having been taken in the interest of public revenue, there was hardly any B
occasion to interfere with the said decision under Article 226 of the Constitution
as the scope of interference in such a case is very limited, the court being
concerned not with the decision itself but with the process of making the
decision. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has, on the other
hand, submitted that the auction had been fairly conducted and the respondent C
having made the highest bid and having deposited 25% of the amount within
24 hours, it had acquired a right to have the auction concluded in its favour
and the cancellation of the auction was wholly illegal. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the Chairman of the Housing Board having made a
proposal on 25.2.2002 for confirmation of the auction, the subsequent order
passed by the Rajasthan Housing Board on 23 .4.2002 cancelling the auction D
is wholly illegal.

5. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties. As mentioned earlier, after getting report
of the bungling done in the auction, the State Government had passed an E
order on 22.2.2002 staying all further proceedings in connection with the
auction. On 20.3.2002 disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the
concerned officers and they were placed under suspension and a further
direction was issued that in future no auction shall be held through any
agency including Satish Auction House, which had conducted the auction in
question. A specific order was passed on 3.4.2002 disapproving the auction F
held on 20.2.2002 and it was mentioned in the order that the same was being
done in exercise of powers conferred by Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing
Board Act. Section 60 of the said Act reads as under:-

"Government's power to give directions to the Board - The State
Government may give the Board such directions as in its opinion are G
necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and
it shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions."

The language of the provision is very clear and it empowers the State
Government to give directions to the Housing Board as in its opinion are
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The section ..
further enjoins that it shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such
directions. The section is couched in very wide language and the Housing
Board has to comply with the directions issued by the State Government.
Therefore, the State Government was fully empowered to issue the directions
whereby it disapproved the auction held on 20.2.2002 and no exception can
B be taken to such a course of action. The directions have been issued in the
interest of the Housing Board to generate revenue and to augment its finances,
it cannot be faulted with on any ground.

6. The auction notice dated 3.2.2002 contained a condition to the effect
C that the Chairman of the Housing Board shall have the final authority regarding
acceptance of the bid. The second auction notice issued on 19.2.2002 mentioned
that the conditions of the auction will be same as mentioned in the earlier
auction notice. In view of this condition in auction notice it is obvious that
a person who had made the highest bid in the auction did not acquire any
right to have the auction concluded in his favour until the Chairman of the
D Housing Board had passed an order to that effect. Of course the Chairman
of the Housing Board could not exercise his power in an arbitrary manner but
so long as an order regarding final acceptance of the bid had not been passed f
by the Chairman, the highest bidder acquired no vested right to have the
auction concluded in his favour and the auction proceedings could always
E be cancelled. What are the rights of an auction bidder has been considered
in several decisions of this Court. However, we will refer to only one such
decision, viz., Laxmikant v. Satyawan [1996] 4 SCC 208 which is almost
identical on facts as it related to auction of a plot by Nagpur Improvement
Trust. The auction notice in this case contained a condition that the acceptance
of the highest bid shall depend upon the Board of Trustees and further the
F person making the highest bid shall have no right to take back his bid and
the decision of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees regarding acceptance
or rejection of the bid shall be binding on the said person. After taking note
of the aforesaid conditions it was held:-

"From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and
G explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the
respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the
confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the
auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of
the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust
reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This Court
H
.. . RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD'" G.S. INVESTMENTS [GP. MATHUR, J.] 875

has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the A
cases of Trilochan.Mishra, etc. v. State ofOrissa [1971] 3 SCC 153,
State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, [1972] 2 SCC 36, Union of
India v. Mis. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, [1969) 3 SCC 146 and State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh [ 1982) 2 SCC 365. It
has been repeatedly pointed out that State or the authority which can B
be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of
the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public
auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in
context with the different conditions under which such auction has
been held. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent C
either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under
the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public
auction was held."

This being the settled legal position, the respondent acquired no right to
claim that the auction be concluded in its favour and the High Court clearly D
erred in entertaining the writ petition and in not only issuing a direction for
consideration of the representation but also issuing a further direction to the
appellant to issue a demand note of the balance amount. The direction
relating to issuance of the demand note for balance amount virtually amounted
to confirmation of the auction in favour of the respondent which was not the E
function of the High Court.

7. The other question which requires consideration is what are the
contours of power which the High Court would exercise in a writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution where the challenge is to cancellation
of an auction held by a public body where the prime consideration is fairness F
and generation of public revenue. This question has been examined by a
catena of decisions of this Court. In a recent decision rendered in Master
Marine Services (P.) Ltd. v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (P.) Ltd., [2005] 6 SCC
138, where after consideration of several earlier decisions, the Bench to which
one of us was a party, summarized the legal principle as under in paragraphs
11 to 15 of the said reports: - G
"11. The principles which have to be applied in judicial review of
administrative decisions, especially those relating to acceptance of
tender and award of contract, have been considered in great detail by
a three Judge Bench in Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR (1996) H
A
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

SC 11. It was observed that the principles of judicial review would
apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in
.. -
order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be
clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that
power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances
of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State.
B
The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available
to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the
Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a
tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the
Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The
c right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of
course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the
exercise of that power will be struck down. (See para 85 of the reports,
sec para 70)
12. After an exhaustive consideration of a large number of decisions
D and standard books on Administrative Law, the Court enunciated the
principle that the modern trend points to 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
E its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be
fallible. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other
words, fairplay 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
F by the application of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but
also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated
by ma/a fides. It was also pointed out that quashing decisions may
impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to
increased and unbudgeted expenditure. (See para 113 of the rP-ports,
sec para 94.)
G
13. In Sterling Computers ltd v. Mis MN. Publications ltd, AIR
(1996) SC 51 it was held as under: (SCC p. 458, paras 18-19)

"18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of
contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is t
H concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity
- RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD v. G.S. INVESTMENTS [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 877
in the "decision making process." By way of judicial review the A
Court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract
which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State.
Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry.
But at the same time ... the Courts can certainly examine whether
"decision making process" was reasonable rational, not arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. B
19. If the contract has been entered into without ignoring the
• procedure which can be said to be basic in nature and after an
objective consideration of different options available taking into
account the interest of the State and the public, then Court
cannot act as an appellate authority by substituting its opinion C
in respect of selection made for entering into such contract."
14. In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V.R. Construction Ltd., [1999] I
sec 492 it was observed that the award of a contract, whether it is
by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a
commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, D
considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial
considerations, which would include, inter alia, the price at which the
party is willing to work, whether the goods or services offered are of
the requisite specifications and whether the person tendering is of
ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications. E
15. The law relating to award of contract by State and public sector
corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd., [2000] 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a
contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a
commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a p
decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons,
if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held
that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have
the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect
is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its
discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should G
exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the
making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger
public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is
called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming
public interest requires interference, the Court should interfere." H
A
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

8. The sale of plots by the Rajasthan Housing Board by means of an
auction is essentially a commercial transaction. Even if some defect was found
.. -
in the ultimate decision resulting in cancellation of the auction, the court
should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution
with great care and caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of
public interest. The court should always keep the larger public interest in
B mind in order to decide whether it should interfere with the decision of the
authority. In the present case there was enough material before the State
Government to show that in the past plots in the area had fetched a price of
Rs. I0,000/- per square meter and the highest bid made by the respondent in
the present case was nearly half, i.e., Rs.5750/- per square meter, which clearly
C indicated that the auction had not been conducted in a fair manner. If in such
a case the State Government took a decision to disapprove the auction held
and issued a direction for holding of a fresh auction, obviously the said
decision was taken in larger public interest. In these circumstances there was
absolutely no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and
issue any direction in favour of the contesting respondent. The orders passed
D by the learned single Judge on 4.8.2004 and the order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court on 23.9.2004 are clearly erroneous in law and are
liable to be set aside.

9. It appears that the respondent initiated contempt proceedings against
E the appellants in which a learned single Judge passed an order on 4.4.2005
observing that the order passed by the court on 4.8.2004 had not been
complied with 'in letter and spirit and a further direction was issued to comply
with the said order within two weeks. The material placed before us shows
that the appellant No. I had issued a notice to the respondent on 15.3.200?
and after giving a personal hearing on the next day, had rejected its
F representation by :he order dated 18.3.2005. In these circumstances there was
no occasion for initiating any contempt proceedings against the appellants.

10. In the result the appeal is allowed with costs. The order dated
4.8.2004 passed by the learned single Judge and the order dated 23.9.2004
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the writ
G petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. The order dated 4.4.2005 passed
by the learned single Judge in contempt proceedings is also set aside and the
contempt petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. The money deposited
by the respondent No. I shall be refunded to it forthwith.

H N.J. Appeal allowed.