The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rules of 1974 regarding sanction of the scheme by the Chief Town Planner do not apply to commercial land auctioned for non-residential purposes, and the respondents are expected to act in a reasonable, fair, and proper manner.

P.S. Asopa, J.-By the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.1992 (Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, canceling the entire auction proceedings of the shops held on 211.1989 at Amber and has further challenged the consequential orders dated 18.02.1992 separately issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amber for shop Nos. 12 and 13, which were approved by the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Amber as per auction notice.

2. In brief the relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement was published in the newspaper notifying that on 25/211.1989, commercial plots of shop Nos. 11 to 14 having size of 20x 25 will be auctioned and shop No. 15 having size of 25 x 15 was also included in the said auction proceedings. The petitioner was highest bidder for shop Nos. 12 and 13, therefore, he had deposited 25% of the amount as per the condition of auction notice. Subsequently, he has also deposited 75% of the balance amount on 30.07.1990 for both the shops bearing number 12 and 13 in compliance of the orders of the Executive Officer dated 11.07.1990 and 25.07.1990 after approval of the said auction by the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Amber. The petitioner has also purchased stamps as per the direction of the Executive Officer for execution and Registration of perpetual lease and got the proforma of the lease deed typed on the same, as per the Rajasthan Municipality (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short the rules of 1974) for shop Nos. 12 and 13, which was to the tune of Rs. 8,905/-and 12,405/-respectively and submitted to the Executive Officer. When nothing favourable was heard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Minister, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Director, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan and then again to the Minister, Local Self Department, in between 03.02.1992 to 30.07.1992. On 04.01.1992, the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan cancelled the auction proceedings with a direction to refund the amount deposited by the purchasers on the ground that neither sanction of Town Planner was taken nor the auction proceedings were held in presence of the officer, who was supposed to be present. Thereafter the consequential orders were passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amber on 18.02.1992. The petitioner has also averred that the Notified Area Committee was converted into Municipal Board, Amber and subsequently it was merged in Jaipur Municipal Corporation. On 19.05.1993, the Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation wrote a letter to the Director, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur that there was no need for taking approval from Chief Town Planner for the land less than 1500 Sq. Yds/stray plots and the present land is less than 1500 Sq Yds. and further the earlier auctions were set-aside on account of inadequate bid and the entire amount has been deposited by the bidder of the present auction, therefore, in order to avoid any kind of litigation and further making payment of interest on the said amount will cause financial loss. The land is not useful and on the said plot commercial activities are going on by putting Tripals. In view of above, the auction of the plot be sanctioned.

3. The petitioner has also referred a proceeding dated 212.1993 which was in the nature of factual report as well recommendation to the Minister by the Director recommending the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated person for the reason that they are bona fide purchasers and it was for the Municipality to take approval of the scheme and not for the petitioner and the Collectors representative was present despite that favourable recommendation, which is legal and proper, the cancellation proceedings have not been withdrawn. Therefore, the petitioner was left with no other

alternate except to file the present writ petition.