Constitution of India Art. 226-Writ of mandamus-Mysore Excise Act, 1901, rules I (1 and 2), II (8 and 10)-Auction of liquor shops-Sale knocked down to highest bidder-Sale subject to confirmation by Deputy Commissioner-Sale cancelled by Excise Commissioner on a higher offer-Deputy Commissioner directed to accept the tender-Tender accepted-Whether wrong-Whether a writ of mandamus should issue under the circumstances. 

The appellant G and the fourth respondent T were rival liquor contractors for the sale of a liquor contract for the year 1953-54 in the State of Mysore. The contract was auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner under the authority conferred upon him by the Mysore Excise Act, 1901. The appellant's bid was the highest and the contract was knocked down in his favour subject to formal confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. The fourth respondent was present at the auction but did not bid. Instead of that he went direct to the Excise Commissioner and made a higher offer. The Excise Commissioner cancelled the sale in favour of G and direct- ed the Deputy Commissioner to take action under rule II.10. The latter accepted T's tender. The appellant's application for a writ of mandamus was dismissed by the High Court but he was granted a certificate under article 133(1) of the Constitution.