( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner wanted to give a tender for construction of tube-wells, the last date for which was 6-12-1972. For giving tender, solvency certificate of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) was required by the petitioner. He, therefore, filed an application on 9-11-1972 accompanied by certain documents vide Annexures A, B, c to the Collector, Hoshangabad who was the competent authority to grant the certificate. The said application was rejected by the Collector on 7-12-1972 vide Annexure 'd'. The contention of the petitioner is that the rejection of his application was mala fide due to personal grudge against Shri Ramlal Sharma, the natural father of the petitioner and that it was wholly unjustified. He has, therefore, filed this petition, praying that the order of the Collector, Hoshangabad be quashed and an appropriate writ be Issued directing the respondent to issue a solvency certificate for Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) to the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN the return filed by the respondent it is denied that the action of the Collector was mala fide or due to personal grudge. The case of the respondent is that solvency certificate was refused because it was found from the record that the petitioner did not own any immovable property and grant of solvency certificate on the basis of movable property is prohibited.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable because the grant of solvency certificate is regulated by Government instructions which are non-statutory. In support of his contention he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely: the State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1196 and G. J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 1753. It was held in these cases that mere administrative instructions confer no right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the government to enforce them.

( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that grant of a solvency certificate is not regulated by any statutory provision but a Government Officer is expected to exercise his administrative functions bona fide with a fair mind. If he acts arbitrarily and abuses his administrative powers to the prejudice of a party, his action is open to challenge by the party adversely affected on the ground that it is discriminatory. The discrimination in such cases arises out of malice or personal bias and as such it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) WHENEVER a discretion is vested in a public body or other authority, the discretion must be exercised fairly and honestly with due regard to the purpose for which it is vested and not arbitrarily with an ulterior purpose. In Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield, 1891 AC 173, Lord Halsbury L. C. observed as under while dealing with the exercise of discretion by Magistrates in the matter of grant of licences under the Licensing Act: "an extensive power is confided to the justices in their capacity as justices to be exercised judicially: and "discretion" means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke's case 5 Rep 100 a: according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself. Wilson v. Rastall, (1792) 4 TR 753 at p. 757. "

( 7 ) IN S. Pratap Singh y. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 their Lordships in paragraph 6 emphasised the rule that every power vested in a public body or authority has to be used honestly, bona fide and reasonably. Their Lordships also quoted with approval the following observations of Pollock M. R. in Short v. Poole corporation, (1926) 1 Ch 66 at p. 85: "where an authority is constituted under s