( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel.

( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 26-2- 96 by which it has affirmed the order of the charity Commissioner accepting the bid offered by respondent No. 2-M/s. Vyapti builders for the three properties belonging to respondent No. 1 on the ground that the charity Commissioner has acted arbitrarily in the background of the present case in accepting the bid of M/s Vyapti Builders, which is lower than the petitioners bid by about Rs. 90,000/-, for no reason.

( 3 ) THE background in which this dispute has arisen is that on 27-4-92 the respondent no. 1 -Trust advertised for the sale of three properties in question under the directions of the Charity Commissioner. The petitioner made its offer in pursuant thereof. Amongst the bidders petitioners bid was highest, i. e. Rs. 23,20,003/ -. The Trust recommended the acceptance of the bid to the Charity Commissioner and decided to return the earnest money deposited by other tenderers. However, for some reason or another the bid of the petitioner did not come to be affirmed by the Charity Commissioner. Meanwhile on 29-6-95 the General Manager of the respondent-Trust gave an application to the Charity Commissioner intimating him that higher offe,rs of the same properties and the same may be considered by the Charity Commissioner. In view of the said application, the Charity commissioner directed to invite fresh offers. The fresh offers were invited by 3. 0 p. m. of 5th July 1995. The offers were to be accompanied with 10% of the offer price as earnest money. In the wake of this development, the petitioner approached this court by way of Special Civil Application no. 5641 of 1995 seeking a mandamus that the Charity Commissioner may be directed to accept its offer made in May 1992 and recommended for acceptance by the Trust at that time. The Special Civil Application came to be rejected on 12-7-95. On 5-7-95 until the expiry of the period for submitting tenders or bids in pursuance of the direction dated 29-6-95 petitioner has not deposited any further amount than the one already lying with the Trust as earnest money for its offer dated 7-5-92. On rejection of petitioners petition, he deposited Rs. 3,98,997/- on 13-7-95. The petitioner, instead of making a firm bid, had made it known to the Charity Commissioner that it is intending to purchase the property at rs. 27/- per sq. yd. and with the maximum of rs. 61,695/- more than the highest bidder. While the tenders were opened on 5-7-95.

( 4 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the charity Commissioner decided to accept the bid offered by respondent No. 2 without cosidering the offer of the petitioner on the ground that on 5-7-95 there was no valid offer made by the petitioner inasmuch as neither there was any firm offer nor the offer was accompanied by requisite deposit that if the petitioners offer is not considered while the bid accepted by the Charity commissioner was the highest. The order of the charity Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal. The Tribunal on taking into consideration the totality of the facts came to the conclusion that the bid of the petitioner cannot be treated as proper and valid offer also. The amount of Rs. 61,675/-, more than the highest bidder, which the appellant had offered, is less than even one per cent of the amount of highest bidding. There is no sizeable difference in the amount if it is compared with the highest offer by the respondent No. 2. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that if the petitioner did want to purchase the property, it should have quoted the price of the properties in clear terms and not in vague terms so as to enable it to be the highest amongst all the offerers without quoting the price in terms of Rupees.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Charity commissioner has acted to the detriment of the trust by not accepting his bid,