Nevaskar, J. - (1.)THIS is a petition by Sunderlal s/o Baijnath Jaiswal an excise contractor residing at Indore under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other suitable direction or order against Excise Commissioner and Collector of Indore. Prayer made in the petition is that the auction sale held on 16 -2 -1954 by the Excise Commissioner Madhya Bharat for vend licence with respect to liquor -shops situated in the city of Indore in favour of opponent No. 2, (Baijanji Shapurji Debu) being illegal and void be quashed and a suitable direction be given.
(2.)HE has impleaded in the petition the State of Madhya Bharat and auction -purchaser Baijanji. He has further joined other Contractors having interest similar to his as pro forma opponents. The petition was submitted on 31 -3 -1954. It was admitted and notice was issued to the opponents to file their returns. During the vacation which intervened, the counsel for the petitioner had to go out and the case was to be heard in July. But on 21 -7 -1954 a serious riot resulting in burning of the records of this Court and those of lower Courts took place at Indore and this record was destroyed. It was ordered to be reconstructed and the petitioner submitted copies of the papers which formed part of the burnt record on 30 -9 -1954.
Notices were, thereupon, again issued to the opponents by an order dated 6 -10 -1954 for hearing on 2 -11 -1954. It was accordingly heard on 2nd and 4th of November 1954.

(3.)THE petitioner stated that on 16 -2 -1954 Excise Commissioner of Madhya Bharat held a public auction at Indore with respect to liquor shops situated in the city of Indore. At the auction the Excise Commissioner first invited tentative offers (Do Boli) for each individual shop. The total offers for all the 11 shops amounted to Rs. 2,65,000/ -. It is further alleged that at this stage without calling for tentative offer (Do Boli) for all the shops together which according to the petitioner is 'the normal, correct and fair practice' he again called for tentative offers a second time reminding all present that better offers should be given otherwise he might have to resort a sale by auction of all the shops together.
During the second stage the contractors including petitioner and opponents Nos. 2 to 8 improved on the first total by Rs. 20,000/ -. Not satisfied with these offers the Commissioner switched off to holding an auction for all the shops together. Opponent No. 2 Baijanji thereupon offered Rs. 3,75,000/ -. It was then not disclosed whether the offers which were being called were tentative (Do Boli) or final (Tin Boli) and that when one Durga Prasad asked the Commissioner to clarify this he was asked to sit down. It is alleged that Durgaprasad and other contractors were then completely non -plussed and were prevented from taking part in the bidding.

The Commissioner then asked opponent No. 2 to raise the bid to Rs. 4,00,000/ -. This he did and the bid was knocked in his favour.

;