1. The petitioner was an abkari contractor of the State. Certain items of immovable property belonging to him were sold by public auction on 13.9.1956 under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. Ext. A is a copy of the proceedings of the sale. It shows the amount due from the petitioner as Rs. 22,402-5-5 and concludes as follows:

2. The first contention before me is that the purchase on behalf of the State at the nominal price of one anna of property which according to the petitioner is worth more than Rs. 1,25,000 cannot be sustained. Sales by auction are as old as the law of sale and an auction as commonly understood (except in the form of auction known as a "Dutch auction") is a public sale of property to the highest bidder. Sub-s. (3) of S.36 of the Travancpre-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, specifically provides for an auction. It says:

"The sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder".

The State was the highest bidder at the auction on 13.9.1956 and I see no reason to hold that the sale was bad because of the nominal character of the price obtained.

3. The next contention is based on two assumptions: (a) that the State was th