( 1 ) THE petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to receive the balance of sale consideration and to register the sale-deed in their favour for an extent of Acts. 17-45 cents of land in R. S. No. 143 situated in Kommugudem Village, Bhimadole Taluk, West Godavari District.

( 2 ) SRI Vcnkateswara Swamy Devesthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala has acs, 17-45 cents of land referred to earlier and it was sought to be sold by public auction to augment its resources. After following the procedure prescribed in Section 74 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966), for short "the Act", and the Alienation of remmoveble Property Rules made thereunder for short "the Rules", auction was held on January 19, 1983 and sum of Rs. 1, 22,000/ was fetched in the said auction and the petitioners became the highest bidders. In terms of the auction, they have deposited a sum of Rs. 40,700/the matter was referred to the Commissioner for confirmation under Rule 10 of the Rules. The Commissioner has rejected the sale and directed reauction. The petitioners, have, therefore, filed the writ Petition.

( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that tough Rule 10 of the rules does not specify a right of hearing being given to the petitioners before the rejection of the bid, by reason of consequences that flow from the rejection, of the bid, the petitioners acquired a right to be heard and the absence thereof is an arbitrary exercise of power violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Rule 10 does not specify the grounds on which or the circumstances under which the bid is to be rejected. these is no right of appeal against the order of rejection. Under these circumstances, the very exercise of the power is arbitrary and therefore it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Mr. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gundai Vs. Union of India. The learned government Pleader resisted the cententioncontending that the rejection of auction by the Commissioaer is justided. The petitioner acquired no right until the contract is concluded and he has no right to be heard. The Commissioner has rejected the auction for valid person and exercise of power is neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 aad 21 of tae Constitution in support thereof the relied upon Radhakrishna Agarwal vs. State of Bihar and Raghunandan vs. State of Hyderabad.

( 4 ) THE only question is whether the petitioners are entitled to ba heard before rejecting the sale held by me Executive Officer of Sri Venkateswara devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, 3rd respondent herein. To answer the question, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of the Act section 74 of the Act gives power for alienation of the immoveable property under the conditions mentioned thereunder. Sec. 74 (1) (b) which is relevant, postulates thus:"74. (1) (b): The Commissioner may, after publishing in the andhra Pradesh Gazette the particulars relating to the proposed transaction and inviting any objections and suggestions, if any, received from the trustee or other person having interest, accord such sanction where he considers that the transaction is (i) necessary or beneficial to the institution or endowment; (ii) consistent with the objects of the institution or endowment;" and. (iii) The consideration therefor is reasonable and proper". Section 74 (l) (c) also provides the procedure for effecting the sale by public auction in the manner prescribed subject to confirmation by the Commissioner within, a period prescribed. The other provisions are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Hence they are omitted. Rule I of the Rules prescribes an elaborate procedure for conducting the sale Rule 1 (1) (f) refers to in the case of sale the probable price or the rental, as the case may be, that is expected of. Then Rule2 provides the procedure fo