Point of Law: it is apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Ujjwal Satsangi holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the advertisement dated 20.03.2020, the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the Mandi Secretary, Agra and the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the allotment committee with the approval of the District Magistrate, Agra.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the bids were invited pursuant to a tender notice after publication in daily newspapers for open auction of 43 shops for allotment at Mandi Sthal Barauli Ameer, Agra. In respect of the seven shops reserved for scheduled castes, only five firms, including the petitioner, submitted their bids. The petitioner submitted a bid of Rs. 16,15,000/in the name of his concern M/s K.G.N. Trading Company. The Allotment Committee, upon considering that the number of applicants was less and competitive bids were not submitted, which had resulted in the bids having been submitted for lesser amount, took a decision not to accept the highest bids submitted in respect of the shops reserved for the scheduled caste category. A resolution in this regard was passed on 26.02.2020 which was approved by the District Magistrate, Agra on the same date. The consequential impugned order dated 16.3.2020 was issued by the Secretary of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and a fresh advertisement notice dated 18.01.2020, published on 20.03.2020 inviting bids, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Clause 9 of the relevant byelaws i.e. Mandi Sthal/UpMandi Sthal/Krishi Vipran Kendra (A.M.H.)/Gramin Avasthapana Kendra (Rin) me nirmit dukano/godamo tatha aanya parisampattiyo ke Avanton Viniyamawali 2016, Avanton Viniyamawali 2016 to submit that even in the case of a single bid, the Allotment Committee was empowered to grant approval. It was sought to be contended that once the bid submitted by the petitioner was highest in the reserved category then the Allotment Committee was bound to accept the same as per the terms of the Avanton Viniyamawali-2016.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition.

6. The bid submitted by the petitioner, in respect of the shop in question which was reserved for the scheduled caste category, was for Rs. 16,15,000/-. The proceedings of the Allotment Committee dated 26.02.2020, which are on record, indicate that the bids submitted under the other categories, i.e. unreserved and OBC category, were much higher. The Allotment Committee, as referred to under Clause 3 (7) of the Avanton Viniyamawali-2016, took into consideration that in respect of the shops reserved for the scheduled caste category only five firms submitted their applications and the number of applicants being less, the bids submitted were not competitive resulting in the bid amount being less. It is in view of the aforesaid situation that the Allotment Committee took a decision not to accept the highest bid in respect of the shops reserved for the category under which the petitioner had submitted his application.

7. The decision of the Allotment Committee is based upon a consideration of the facts in respect of the category under which the petitioner had applied, and it cannot be said that the decision arrived at by the Allotment Committee is without consideration of the relevant material or that there is no basis to support the decision of the order of the Allotment Committee.

8. No other ground has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner to point out any illegality in the decision arrived at by the Allotment Committee leading to non-acceptance of the highest bids submitted in the category under which the petitioner had a