Gokulakrishnan, Offg. C.J.
1. The appellant filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai, to hold the auction as per the notice dated 10-2-1981. According to the appellant, the Corporation, instead of holding the auction as per its tender notice, has stopped the auction for collection of the daily fees from persons who are selling flowers inside the Central Market, Madurai, known as Muthuramalinga Thevar Market, for the year 1981-82, and contemplates to lease it out. The learned, Judge felt that the relief asked for by the appellant could not be brought within the purview of the writ jurisdiction of this court and accordingly he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. Mr. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that as per the tender notice and also practice of the Corporation, the Corporation must conduct the auction and it, cannot revert to the system of leasing out contract. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has not only deposited the fee along with, the tender, but has also made the deposit for birddog at the auction. The learned counsel submits that on the principle of promisory estoppel, the Corporation must be directed to hold the auction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Century Spinning and . v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, : 3SCR854 , where in the Supreme Court has held that public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representation of facts and promises made by them, relying on which other persons have their position to their prejudice. It is clear from the auction notice and also the tender notice that the right to cancel or to refuse to accept the highest bid in the auction and the tender is reserved with the Corporation itself. As far as the present case is concerted, there is no representation by the authorities concerned that the highest bid or tender will be accepted, and that an auction will be held, at any rate. Further, the appellant herein has not done any act in furtherance of an promise made by the authorities concerned and no prejudice whatever has been caused to him, as contemplated by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. We therefore do not think that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court will, apply to the facts of this case.
3. The next decision relied on by learned c6unsel for the appellant is in Jaisinghani v. Union of India, : 65ITR34(SC) . That case related to the arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorities concerned, and, after referring to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that in a system governed by the rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon the executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits.
4. As far as the present case is concerned, it is for the Corporation to decide how best to augment its income by leasing out or giving licence for sale of articles in the public market. Such powers are vested with the Corporation concerned and persons who aspire to have lease or licence are put on notice regarding the powers of the Municipal authority to accept or refuse or can the tender or auction. Hence we do not think that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above will apply to the facts of this case, inasmuch as no prejudice has been caused to the appellant herein, in view of the fact that the authorities have acted within their powers in not putting up for auction or lease the collection of daily fees from persons who are selling flowers inside the central market at Madurai. We therefore find no merits in this writ appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
5. Appeal dismissed.