The main legal point established in the judgment is that pay orders can constitute sufficient compliance with the requirements of Rule 5A of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules.

The sale of the right to run Toddy Shop No. 1, Koottumgal, Shertallai Range for the year 1981-82 was fixed for March 24,1981. Before the auction the petitioner who was licensee of the shop for the year 1980-81 submitted a tender for Rs 60,000/- with all the prescribed documents including a Bank draft for Rs. 6,000/- from the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Respondent 4 submitted a tender for Rs. 60,100/ and the tender was accompanied by two pay orders of which Exts R.1 and R.1 fa) are the copies for Rs, 4.500/-and Rs 2000/-issued by the Alleppey Branch of the Bank of Cochin Limited in favour of the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Alleppey. The tenders and other records were submitted before the 2nd respondent, the District Collector, Alleppey who was the Auctioning Officer The demand draft given by the petitioner and the pay orders given by respondent 4 represented amounts not less than 10% of the tendered amount as mentioned by Rule 5A of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules Respondent 2 rejected the tender of respondent 4 as it was accompanied by pay orders and not by demand draft as required by Rule 5A and provisionally accented the petitioner's tender. The petitioner thereupon deposited a security of 30% of the tender amount under Exts P1 and P2 and executed a temporary agreement in terms of the rules. Respondent 4 thereupon filed a petition before the 1st respondent, the Board of Revenue. By its decision dated April I. 1981 the Board of Revenue set aside the order of respondent 2 and accepted the tender of respondent 4. Respondent 3 thereupon sent to the petitioner a communication Ext. P3 dated April 2, 1981 intimating her the decision of the Revenue Board and asking her to get her security released. On April 3, 1981 respondent 4 remitted the necessary amount and executed the required agreement. The petitioner has filed the Original Petition challenging the decision of the Board of Revenue on a number of grounds She complains that as respondent 2 was alone competent to accept her tender it was not open to the Board of Revenue or any other authority to revoke the acceptance of her tender. 11 is alleged that the Rules vest no reserve or supervisory power in the Revenue; Board in this regard and that its action was completely void. She further alleges that even if the Board of Revenue had any power it should have rejected the tender of respondent 4 as invalid, as was done by respondent 2, because it was accompanied only by, pay orders and not a demand draft in terms of Rule 5A The petitioner also contends that the Revenue Board has violated the rules of natural justice in that it passed the impugned decision without bearing her or even without issuing her a notice.

2. Respondent 4 has filed a counter-affidavit seeking to meet these contentions.

3. The three contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner are that in terms of Rule 5A, respondent 2 was right in rejecting the tender of respondent 4, that the Revenue Board was wrong in taking a contrary view, that it acted without jurisdiction in purporting to interfere with the acceptance of the petitioner's tender as it has no power to do so and that even if it has the power it erred in exercising the power without notice to the petitioner.

4. The first contention turns upon the question whether a pay order satisfies the requirements of Rule 5A. Rule 5A which was added to the Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules by an amendment dated March 7, 1981 lays down so far as material, that before the commencement of the sale of each shop, the Officer conducting the sale shall also invite tenders, and that the tenders which should be in Form VI should be accompanied by a demand draft for an amount not less than 10% of the tendered amount. Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to S.85A of the Negotiable Instruments Act which defines a draft as an order to pay money, drawn by one office of a bank upon another office of the same Bank for a sum of mon