JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - In both these appeals. Shri R. H. Zaidi has put in appearance for respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and learned counsel for the appellants Sri B. D. Mandhyan and Sri R.H. Zaidi are agreed that both the appeals may he decided finally at this stage. In both the appeals. common question of law and fact are involved and they can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. 2. The facts, in brief giving rise of the F.A.F.O. No. 531 of 1991, are that the Zila Parishad, Bijnor made an advertisement in local newspaper inviting interested persons to participate in open auction for obtaining licence to collect carcasses of the dead animal and to extract hides and bones therefrom. the licence was to be granted block wise for the year 1991-92. Initially the auction was scheduled for the date 27th March, 1991 but it was postponed for Ist April, 1991. The auction took place and the bid of Sri Mukhtiar Ahmad respondent for Rs. 3,00.100/- was found highest in respect of Mohammadpur Deomah block. The bid was accepted and respondent Mukhtiar Ahmad deposited Rs. 75.000/- immediately after acceptance of the hid as being highest and the rest of the money was to be deposited by him within three days from the date of auction. However, on 2nd April, 1991, another notice was published that the auction shall be again held on 3rd April, 1991 under the orders of the Collector/ Adhyaksh. Zila Parishad, Bijnor. The respondent on 3rd April, 1991 made an attempt to deposit the rest of the amount of his bid but it was not accepted. Aggrieved Mukhtiar Ahmad filed Original Suit No. 71 of 1991 and prayed that the defendant appellant be restrained from re auctioning the licence for collecting carcasses of the dead animals and hides and bones in respect of Mohammadpur Deomah block for which his bid of Rs. 3.00,100/- has already been accepted. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to accept the amount of Rs. 2.25.100/- which he has always been prepared to deposit and is still prepared to deposit. 3.00,100/- has already been accepted. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to accept the amount of Rs. 2.25.100/- which he has always been prepared to deposit and is still prepared to deposit. In this suit an application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved which after hearing both the parties, was allowed vide order dated 3rd June, 1991 by learned VI Additional District Judge, Bijnor, Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of temporary injunction this appeal has been filed by the appellants. 3. The facts giving rise to the F.A.F.O. No. 532 of 1991 are also identical. Only difference is that in this case the bid of Sri Abdul Salam respondent in respect of 10 Nyay Panchayats of Haldaur for the year 1991-92 was accepted being highest for Rs. 2,31,000,'-. Respondent Abdul Salam deposited Rs. 40,000/- immediately with the fall of the and the rest of the amount was to be deposited within three days from the date of the auction. Rest of the facts are identical and as the re-auction of the aforesaid licence was noticed for 3rd April, 1991. Abdul Salam has also filed Original Suit No. 174 of 1991 for identical relief. The application (Paper No. 7-0 for grant of temporary injunction was moved by Abdul Salam. The said application has also been allowed by order dated 3rd June, 1991 aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed by Zila Parishad, Bijnor. 4. We have heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri R. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondents. Sri B. D. Mandhyan also made available to us the original record pertaining to the aforesaid auction. We have perused extensively original record. 5. It will not be out of place to mention is the Hoof rrasses of the dead animals and the hides and bones came up before this Court as well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to frame model by-laws regulating auction of the rights in such a manner so that the interest of persons traditionally engaged in collecting such materials may not be effected and they may not be exploited by middle men. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to frame model by-laws regulating auction of the rights in such a manner so that the interest of persons traditionally engaged in collecting such materials may not be effected and they may not be exploited by middle men. In pursuance of the various orders and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection, State Government issued several orders directing Zila Parishads to allot the licence to the co-operative societies consisting of members of poor communities who are traditionally engaged in this trade. In case such societies are available the contract should not be put to general auction but should be settled only with such societies. Parties are not at dispute so far the aforesaid position is concerned. In case the co-operative societies consisting of persons traditionally engaged in such trade were available, the licence cannot be auctioned by Zila Parishad in favour of respondents. 6. However, the perusal of the original record tells a different story in both the appeals. It is necessary to give a narration of facts found from record which shall clarify the position. In respect of the year 1990-91 the licence to collect carcasses of the dead animal was settled with two co-operative societies namely Pashu Shav Chhedan Evam Haddi Coora Udhyog Sahkari Samiti, Kaziwala and another co-operative society of the same name of village Ganj, Block Halduar, district Bijnor. The licence was settled in their favour for the amount of Rs. 2.42,075.00 and Rs. 1.70,507.00 in respect of two blocks. However societies committed default and for the aforesaid financial year amounts of" Rs. 1,59,355.80 P. and of Rs. I.03.373.20 P. remained unpaid. Both the societies committed default. Mukhva Adhikari submitted a detailed report in this connection before the Collector/Adhyaksh, Zila Parishad on 23rd March, 1991. There is nothing that after talks, Collector, Bijnor directed to persuade the aforesaid co-operative societies to clear the arrearm. However, it appears that the co-operative societies did not deposit the aforesaid amount. Further an enquiry was made and it was found that the members of the aforesaid societies were not the persons belonging to the communicates traditionally engaged in such trade, hence they were not legally entitled to be given any preference as per Government orders. It was in these circumstances that the right to collect carcasses and the hides and bones was put to open auction on 1st April, 1991. It was in these circumstances that the right to collect carcasses and the hides and bones was put to open auction on 1st April, 1991. It appears that all papers were then placed before Collector, Bijnor who orally disapproved the auction held on 1-4-1991. There is noting that after talks with the Collector, Bijnor he has directed to reacution the licence tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and proceedings for reauction should be taken in the office of Zila Parishad. No reason has been assigned for passing this order. There is no order in writing, it was only an oral direction given by the Collector. It is not clear from the record that the said co-operative societies cleared the dues relating to the financial year 1990-91 or that the order against them that the members do not belong to the community traditionally engaged in such trade was set aside or withdrawn by any authority. Sri B. D. Mandhyan during arguments failed to produce any order in writing passed by Collector, Bijnor directing re-auction. It is also clear from the record that no opportunity or notice was given to the respondents for not sticking to the auction city. 1st April, 1991 in which their bids being highest, were accepted and acted upon. The crucial date for determining the propriety of the order is 2nd April, 1991 when the reauction was directed by Collector, Bijnor. From the perusal of the record pertaining to auction and the documents filed. We do not find any legal justification for directing reauction. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the societies consist of the persons (which too was decided much after 2-4-1991) belonging to the community traditionally engaged in such business, there is nothing on record to show that the default committed by them in previous year was, in any way, cleared. It was in full knowledge of the Collector, Bijnor that the societies have committed default so tar as the provisos year amount is concerned. Efforts were made to persuade the societies to deposit the amount as directed by him but till 1st April, 1991 the amounts were it got deposited. The auction on 1st April,id,991 was held with the permission of Collector, Bijnor. It was not justified on his part 6o go back from the auction in this manner. We have no hesitation in saying that the auction of the appellants was most arbitrary and unreasonable. The auction on 1st April,id,991 was held with the permission of Collector, Bijnor. It was not justified on his part 6o go back from the auction in this manner. We have no hesitation in saying that the auction of the appellants was most arbitrary and unreasonable. 7. The another aspect of the problem is that on the fall of the hammer on the highest bid being accepted the contract stood concluded. There is nothing to show any default on the part of the respondents. They complied with all the conditions which were necessary for participating in the auction. A right accrued in their favour and this right cannot be taken away without giving them an opportunity of hearing. For this reason also the action of the appellants directing reauction of the licence to collect carcasses is wholly illegal, arbitrary and void being violative of principles of natural justice. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar v. Udai Veer Singh, reported in AIR 1989 All p. 64, has held that under S. 64 of Sale of Goods Act the auction sale completes by fall of hammer. It has been further observed in para 36 that "Public bodies conducting public auctions will lose their credibility and the conduct of public, auction might lead to endless litigations when they will be upset without cause though held profitably, regularly and without defeat. An auction which has been regularly conducted strictly as desired by a public body or Government with no illegality having been pointed out and is at a monetary advantage over the previous year, must be finalised. This Court cannot permit an auction in which no illegality has been pointed out to be abandoned merely because officials do not act when they should have acted or chose to act w hen it was too late to act-. The aforesaid division bench is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants, relied on certain Uoveinment Orders which contained directions to give preference to the co- operative societies consisting of such persons who here traditionally engaged in such trade. The aforesaid division bench is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants, relied on certain Uoveinment Orders which contained directions to give preference to the co- operative societies consisting of such persons who here traditionally engaged in such trade. There ais no dispute that the direction of the State (Government is binding on the Zila Parishad and normally the Zila Parishad ought to have settled the licence with the co- operative societies and should not have given it by public auction. Sri Mandhyan relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gramin Charan Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. District Etawah v. Zila Parishad, reported in 1991 (Vol. 1) U.P.L.B.E.C. p. 608, we have already stated that the licence to collect carcasses and hides and bones should have been settled with the co-operative societies as per directions of the State Government but it is not disputed that the two co-operative societies which were given licences in the previous year have committed default in paying substantial amount and thus they dis entitled themselves for preference which normally should have gone to them under the Government Orders. The facts of the case relied on by Sri Mandhyan are clearly distinguishable and it cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. The Government Orders, contained no direction, that Zila Parishad should settled there licence with the co-operative societies which have not paid the amount due from them. The orders cannot be given such meaning or literal application, so as to cause loss to Zila Parishad. The authorities in such circumstances should reconcile the situation, could legally refuse to give preference to such societies which may be detrimental to the interest of Zila Parishad. 9. We put a question that arguments to Sri B. D. Mandhyan to show as to how the approval of the auction held on 1st April, 1991, was necessary, in this case, by Adhykash/Collector, Bijnor. However, Sri Mandhyan failed to invite our attention to any such reservation kept in the terms and conditions to which the auction was made subject, or to any by-laws or rule making such approval obligating. However, Sri Mandhyan failed to invite our attention to any such reservation kept in the terms and conditions to which the auction was made subject, or to any by-laws or rule making such approval obligating. Sri Mandhyan relied on the provisions of S. 33 of U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam and also placed reliance in part A of Schedule II and S. 51(i) S. 143 and S. 202. We have considered the provisions and, in our opinion, none of the aforesaid provisions provide it as a matter of condition that every auction shall be subject to the approval of the Adhyaksh, Zila Parishad. In fact we strongly feel that the Collector who functioned as Adhyaksh. Zila Parishad at relevant time, acted in arbitrary manner in unsetting the auction held on 1st April, 1991 without passing any reasoned order and without giving any opportunity to the persons concerned. Such action cannot he and should not be approved. 10. We have perused the orders impugned in both the appeals and we do not find any error on which basis an interference may be said to be necessary by this Court. The appeals have no force. 11. For the reasons recorded above. both appeals are dismissed. However, there will he no order as to costs.