1. In these cases, the basic challenge is to the order of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board (the Board) dated 30-8-2012 canceling the auction of 56 sundry shops held by the Krishi Upaz Mandi, Durg (the Committee); and the main point involved is.

Whether prior approval of the Board was necessary before executing the lease deeds of the shops or the approval already granted for the auction was sufficient.

THE FACTS

2. The Committee advertised for an auction of 56 sundry shops at the mandi campus on 10th and 11th of January, 2011. The basic price for each shop was fixed at Rs. 17,00,000/-.

3. The Appellants and the Petitioner (the successful-Bidders) deposited the security amount and submitted their bids. The bids were opened on 21-2-2011. They were successful.

4. The successful-Bidders further deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 7-3-2011. They were to deposit the remaining amount after the completion of certain developments. However, no agreement was entered into between the parties.

5. It appears that there were certain newspaper reports in which it was reported that there was mishandling, under bidding in the auction. The Managing Director (the MD) of the Board wrote a letter to the Deputy Director on 11-5-2011 requiring him to submit a report.

6. The Joint Director of the Board also wrote a letter on 23-7-2011 to the Raipur Office to submit report in respect of the same in compliance of the letter dated 11-5-2011.

7. The Committee submitted its report on 11-8-2011. Thereafter, the Joint Director of the Board submitted a report to the MD of the Board on 17-8-2011.

8. Subsequently, the MD cancelled the auction on 30-8-2012 and ordered for re-auction. In compliance of the order, the Committee also cancelled the same by its order dated 1-9-2012.

9. The successful-Bidders filed writ petitions challenging the aforesaid orders canceling the auction in their favour.

10. The writ petitions in the first 44 cases as well as some other writ petitions were consolidated and were dismissed by the single Judge on 7-1-2013. Hence, the writ appeals.

11. The 45th case, namely the writ petition, was filed subsequently challenging the same orders. As the facts and points involved were the same, it was tagged with the appeals. With the consent of the parties, it is being decided along with the appeals.

SUCCESSFUL-BIDDERS SUBMISSIONS

12. We have heard counsel for the parties. The counsel for the successful-Bidders submit that:-

(i) No approval of the Board was necessary and the bids became final, as soon as they were accepted by the Committee;

(ii) There is no basis in the order dated 30-8-2012;

(iii) The reserve price was fixed was Rs. 17,00,000/-. The bids were for a price higher than Rs. 17,00,000/- and they could not be cancelled;

(iv) The contract was already accepted. The bids cannot be cancelled.

1st SUBMISSION: APPROVAL NECESSARY

13. The counsel for the successful-Bidders brought to our notice the letters dated 6-1-2011 and 2-11-2011 and submit that:

(1) The auction was already approved by the Board;

(2) There was no necessity for taking separate permission before granting lease to the successful-Bidders.

14. It is correct that there was prior approval for the auction of the shops, but the question here is, whether the approval of the Board was necessary before executing the individual lease deeds or not, or was approval for the auction enough?

15. The Committee as well as the Board have been established under the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (the Act). Section 7 of the Act is titled Establishment of Market Committee and its Incorporation. Its proviso (see below)1 indicates that no immovable property shall be acquired, transferred by way of sale, lease or otherwise without the prior permission of the Managing Director in writing.

16. The fact that prior approval was necessary was also clarified by the earlier circular of the Board dated 23-11-2010 (the Circular). It was issued much before the auction was held.

17. The Circular is