Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. No.102/1961 is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent, the Panchayat Board of Cherukupalli filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 525/- alleging that the defendant was the highest bidder at an auction whereby the right to collect fee at the weekly shandy was leased. As the defendant did not pay the bid amount the Panchayat Board filed a suit. The defendant contended that though he was the highest bidder his bid was not accepted by the Panchayat or at any rate the acceptance of the Panchayat was never communicated to him. Therefore, he did not collect any fee in the shandy and he was not liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. 2. The learned District Munsif holding the acceptance of the Panchayat of the bid was not communicated to the defendant and that the defendant did not either by himself or through his agents collect any fee dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the judgment of the learned District Munsif and decreed the suit. According to the learned Subordinate Judge it was not necessary that the Panchayat should accept the bid. In any case he held that the Panchayat had passed a resolution approving the bid and that was sufficient acceptance. He also held that the evidence of P.Ws 1 & 2, the previous and the present Executive Officer of the Panchayat, showed that the defendant did collect the fee. 3. Mr. Venkatappayya Sastry for the petitioner contends that the acceptance of the bid by the panchayat is necessary under the rules. He has referred me to rule 6 of the Rules made under the Madras Village Panchayats Act 1950. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is in the following terms: "The Executive authority shall, after the auction is completed place before the panchayat a list of the bids at the auction. The panchayat shall determine which of the bids at the auction should be accepted. Where the bid accepted is not the highest bid, the reasons for rejecting the bid or bids higher than the one accepted shall be recorded in writing." 4. Mr. Venkatappayya Sastrys contention is, therefore, well founded and the acceptance of the bid by the Panchayat is necessary. It is true that there is a resolution passed by the Panchayat accepting the bid, but there is nothing to indicate that this resolution was communicated to the defendant. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 requires that the Executive authority on behalf of the panchayat shall enter into a written contract with the person whose bid has been accepted. Admittedly that has not been done. If, in fact, the acceptance was communicated there was no reason for not entering into a written contract, nor for failing to collect the amount. In fact the amount should have been collected at the time of the auction itself. That was not done, nor was any attempt made to collect the amount during the course of the year. No notice was issued to the defendant at any time. It is therefore, abundantly clear that the Executive authority or whoever is the competent authority was guilty of latches and in order to cover up those latches this suit has now been filed. There is also no evidence to sustain the finding that the defendant was collecting the tee during the year. It is admitted that from the commencement of the period for which the lease was auctioned the defendant was in jail for a period of nine months undergoing imprisonment in connection with a case of misappropriation. The evidence of P.W. 1 that the defendant was collecting the fee cannot therefore be true. The evidence of P.W. 2 that he heard that defendants agents were collecting the fee is nothing but hearsay. Further, rules require and it is admitted that any receipt of fee must be got printed and signed by the Executive Officer. Admittedly this was not done. Without such receipts it is not stated how the defendant or his agents could have collected the fee. It is not also explained why the Executive Officer kept quiet and allowed the defendant to collect the fee without getting the receipts signed by him and without paying the bid amount to the panchayat. I have no hesitation; to come to the conclusion that the suit has been filed only to cover up the latches of those in charge of the affairs of the Panchayat. The judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Judgment set aside.