( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the recovery certificate Annexure F/1 whereby the respondents intended to recover Rs. 25920/- from the petitioner towards the alleged loss on account of resale of Tendu leaves of Forest unit No. 19-B. Morha and for refund to earnest money Rs. 5,000/ -.

( 2 ) THE facts are that in response to Tender Notice, published in M. P. Gazette dt 27-12-1978, inviting tender for sale of right of collection of Tendu leaves, among others, of unit No. 19-B Morha, forest division Rewa, the petitioner submitted a tender along with deposit of earnest money Rs. 5000/- on 19-1-1979 before Conservator of Forest, Jabalpur. The quantity of Tendu leaves was 1200 standard bags and the upset price was Rs. 108/-per beg. The petitioner on learning about general boycott by the prospective purchasers to persuade the government to bring down the prices, allegedly submitted an application (Ann. A) on 20-11-1979 to the Conservator of Forest withdrawing the tender, before it was opened. Meanwhile the last date for submission of tender was extended to 29th/30th Jan. 1979 by notification (Ann. B) and to 12th/13th Feb. , 1979 by notification (Ann. C ). Since tenders were still not received in respect of majority of the units, the Chief Conservator of Forest by order dt 10-3-1979 (Ann. D), and another order dt 12-3-1979, notified reduction of upset prices by 10% and 20% respectively. Petitioner further alleges that he received no communication from the respondentsaccepting his tender. In spite of withdrawal of tender before its acceptance, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa, addressed a letter dt 20-3-1979 (Ann. F), requesting Collector Rewa, to issue certificate of Recovery to Collector, Mirzapur U. P. to recover Rs. 25920. 00 from the petitioner toward loss of unit No. 19-B Marha 1979 and in pursuance of this, Collector Rewa issued Certificate of Recovery (Ann. F/1) addressed to Collector, Mirzapur. The petitioner's submissions are : (i) The acceptance of his tender was never communicated; (ii) he withdrew the tender before acceptance: (iii) the condition prohibiting withdrawal of tender is invalid; and (iv) by the threatened recovery, the petitioner, was subjected to deprivation of property unauthorisedly.

( 3 ) THE respondents through their common return did not dispute that the petitioner gave his tender for unit No. 19-B Morha and also deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, as earnest money. They also do not dispute that the upset price as also the last date of submission of tender were changed from time to time. However, they specifically denied that the petitioner withdrew his officer before its acceptance. They further submitted that the acceptance of his tender was communicated to him by letter-Annexure R. IV. The respondents' case is that even after acceptance of his tender and appointing him as purchaser, the petitioner did not turn up to execute agreement and thereby committed breach of the terms of the tender notice Annexure R-I. In the event of breach of any condition of tender Notice, the State Government is entitled to recover die loss under S. 82 of the Indian Forest Act They admitted that a letter was addressed to the Collector for recovery of Rs. 25,920/- vide Recovery certificate Annexure-F/i.

( 4 ) WE have therefore to see whether the tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted, whether the said acceptance was communicated to the petitioner and whether the petitioner withdrew his offer before communication of acceptance. The general rule is that it is the acceptance of offer by the offeree and intimation of that acceptance to the offerer which results in a contract See Karan Singh Chandan Singh v. Collector Chhatarpur, 1980 MPLJ 231. One of the exceptions to this general rule is that when by agreement course of conduct or usage of trade, acceptance by post or telegram is authorised, the bargain is struck and the contract is complete when the acceptance