The State Government has the power to cancel the auction sale of timber lots beyond one lakh as the D.F.O. is not competent to sanction the sale beyond one lakh and the sale is not complete until the sanction is granted by the competent authority.

( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 29-11-1995, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in M. C. C. No. 382/95 (State of M. P. and two others v. G. L. Patel), arising out of order dated 16-2-1995, passed by the learned single Judge in M. P. No. 1037/94. The State has also challenged in this appeal, the order passed by the learned single Judge in M. P. No. 1037/94, decided on 16-2-1995. It has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal under Section 5 of Limitation Act against the order dated 16-2-1995 in M. P. No. 1037/94.

( 2 ) XXX XXXX XXXX

( 3 ) THE State has also filed L. P. A. No. 206/95 against the order passed by a learned single Judge in M. C. C No. 383 95 which arose from the order, dated 16/2/ 1995, passed in M. P. No. 1158/94. In this appeal also an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order 16-2-1995 in M. P. No. 1158/94 has been filed by the State. 3. It may be mentioned here that both these appeals are connected because M. P. Nos. 1037/94 and 1158/94 were heard as connected writ petitions. Similarly M. C. C. Nos. 382/95 and 383/95 were also heard together. The learned single Judge has passed the main order in M. P. No. 1037/94 and in review petition in M. C. C. No. 382/95.

( 4 ) THE reasons given in disposal of this L. P. A. shall also govern L. P. A. No. 206/95.

( 5 ) IN M. P. No. 1037/ 94, 61 petitioners filed a petition against the State Govt. , the Conservator-in-Chief, Forest Department, Bhopal and Divisional Forest Officer (Production Harda. It was alleged in the petition that the Divisional Format Officer, Harda issued an auction notice for holding auction of nearly 450 lots of timber on 20/21-2-1994 at Timarni as per tender conditions, annexed to the petition as Annexure-A. It was alleged to the petition, inter alia, that the petitioners were the persons who accepted the tender conditions and were allowed to bid in the auctions aforesaid in respect of the forest produce as defined under Section 2 (O) of the M. P. Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiriiyam, 1969. They had deposited the earned money as per the tender condition prior to making the bid. Thereafter when bid was knocked in their favour, the petitioners, or their forest agents, signed the bid-sheet and the D. F. O. (Production) Harda, counter signed the bid-sheet in token of acceptance of the bid. The relevant allegation made by the petitioners is in paragaph 6 of the petition which is reproduced as under :"that in the auction proceedings highest offers in respect of respective petitioners in respect of lots detailed in the statement appended with the petition have been accepted and respective petitioners, his partner or his authorised agent vras required to sign the bid sheet, counter signed by the D. F. O. (Production), Harda, on token of the acceptance thereby requiring each petitioner to deposit the balance sum to make up 25% of his accepted bid. A pro forma of the bid-list is hereto annexed as Annexure-E. "the petitioners further alleged that they also deposited 25% of the sale price immediately or within the time prescribed for tender notice and were ready and willing to deposit the rest of the 75% price as per tender conditions. However, they were given cyclostyled order collectively marked by them in their petition as Annexure-G, dated 18-3-1995, whereby their auction was cancelled by the State. ( 6 ) THE petitioners contended in the petition and other connected petition that after the bid was knocked in their favour by the fall of hammer, the State Govt did not have any power or authority to cancel the sale. For this purpose, they relied upon a reported decision of this Court Jai Bhawani Timber, Jabalpur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 MPLJ 423 : (AIR 1992 Madh Pra 250 ). In this connection, it is necessary to reproduce paragraph 15 of the petition which is as follows:"that in simila