H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. V. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the respondents, namely, the learned High Court Government Advocate Sri B. E. Kotian and sri B. G. Sridharan, who represents the respondent 1-the Market committee. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 28-8-1997, passed by respondent 1-the Market Committee in No. Kai U Masa - Cim Niveshan 1997-98 of 1830-Annexure-H, to this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's case is that plaintiff has been a registered dealer, commission agent and general merchant and had been carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of the Market committee-respondent 1. Petitioner, as asserted to be having the valid licence to carry out the business in the A. P. M. C. Yard of sindhanoor, vide a licence issued by Respondent 1, annexure-A1. The petitioner has filed the copy of the certificate, whereunder it is said that it has been certified by respondent I, that the petitioner has been carrying on the business in the Yard from 1992, till this date and had been holding the licence. Petitioner's further case is that depending upon the need of establishment of Market Yard for the farmers and dealers, respondent 1, acquired open site from the private owners and thereafter, agreed to allot the same on lease-cum-sale agreement basis for a period of 10 years. Pursuant to this agreement, respondent 1 made allotment of the site for the purpose of construction of the shop-cum-godown on the petitioner's application for the purpose and the petitioner was allotted a vacant corner site by respondent 1. The site allotted is Plot No. 1 measuring 13 x 9 metres, at the rate of Rs. 160. 62 per square metre, at the cost of Rs. 43,368/-, vide allotment order dated 21-3-1997, Annexure-B, to this writ petition. Petitioner's case is that on 22-3-1997, petitioner remitted the whole sum of Rs. 43,368/- and got the receipt for the deposit made which receipt has been annexed as Annexure-C, to this writ petition and in pursuance of the amount, the Market Committee executed a registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 27-3-1997, copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-D, to this writ petition. 43,368/- and got the receipt for the deposit made which receipt has been annexed as Annexure-C, to this writ petition and in pursuance of the amount, the Market Committee executed a registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 27-3-1997, copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-D, to this writ petition. As per condition of the recitals in the deed vide Clause 9, of the deed, petitioner was required to carry out the construction work within the time prescribed thereunder. Petitioner's case is that vide letter dated 16-4-1997, that is annexure-E, from the respondents, petitioner had been required to make the constructions. ( 4 ) THE petitioner in order to make the construction of shop-cum-godown on the allotted site, did require financial assistance and thereafter, complying with the pre-requisites for construction of the shop-cum-godown on the site allotted, the petitioner requested the Chief Officer of the City Municipal corporation, Sindhanoor, to grant necessary permission for construction and, who had been pleased to grant that permission on 14-8-1997. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner after meeting the statutory requirements of law including the agricultural Produce Marketing Act, constructed the shop-cum-godown, as per approved plan sanctioned by respondent 1, and after completing the construction work, he started functioning therein carrying on his business. The petitioner's further case is, on the basis of the orders said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent, that is, the Director of the Agricultural Marketing Department-respondent 1 passed a resolution cancelling the allotment of the site made in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved from that order of cancellation of allotment, the petitioner has filed this petition. Petitioner's further case is that before the cancellation order was passed, no notice was given to the petitioner, nor was he given an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner's further case is that he had constructed the building after having invested a huge sum of amount for the construction work and got it completed. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel stated that the amount invested would not be less than rupees 2 lakhs, it may be more than 2 lakhs, he submitted, no doubt, amount has not been mentioned in petition but it was about 2 lakhs. The petitioner has, as such, prayed for cancellation or quashing of the resolution-Annexure-H, dated 28-8-1997, as well as the order of the Director, dated 8-8-1997. The petitioner has, as such, prayed for cancellation or quashing of the resolution-Annexure-H, dated 28-8-1997, as well as the order of the Director, dated 8-8-1997. The learned Counsel pointed out to me that the allotment had been made with the approval of the director of the Market Committee. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the petitioner has come up by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. ( 8 ) ON notice being issued to the respondents, the Market Committee filed the statement of objections. It has been stated in Paragraph 2 of the statement of objections filed by respondent 1, as under: "it is respectfully submitted that Site No. 1, situated in the old market-yard is a corner site and according to the circular issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing in the year 1991, corner sites are required to be preserved for the benefit of the Market Committee and for their use only. In case the corner sites are not necessary for the use of the market Committee, then only the Market Committee could allot the same to deserving market functionaries. Further, when an allotment is to be made in respect of a corner site, the Market Committee was directed to allot such sites only by way of public auction on the basis of lease-cum-sale or leave and licence, as the case may be. In the present case, the allotment of the scheduled site was not made by way of public auction, but only by way of a resolution. Therefore, the 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to cancel the allotment. Accordingly, the market Committee held a meeting and passed a resolution resolving to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and thereafter communicated the decision to the petitioner". ( 9 ) IN Paragraph 3, it has been submitted that the circular referred to above also states that if the corner sites are allotted by way of public auction, the same are likely to fetch more money to the Market Committee and that would be in the best interest of the Market Committee, since the Market Committee is required to provide all facilities to the market functionaries and the agriculturists in the market yard. ( 10 ) ON this basis, the order has been sought to be justified. ( 10 ) ON this basis, the order has been sought to be justified. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the respondents, that order has sought to be justified on the ground by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there was nothing illegal in the issuance of the direction by the Director to Market Committee to cancel and the market Committee did so, cancelled the allotment. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. ( 12 ) IN my opinion, the order impugned suffers from many illegalities. No doubt, for plots, allotment may be made by way of auction, there may be many good reasons. I do not want to go into those reasons. But, to contend that, to collect more monetary benefits and more or heavy price is the motto and objective for adopting the process of auction does not befit the market Committee, or the object for which it has been created as well as cannot be said to be a valid justification, for such reason does not stand on line with socio-economic objects of welfare state and the Constitution and the Act. The Agricultural marketing Act is a social welfare legislation and is not to be taken to be a business like commercial enterprise, where the authority should think that how much the Market Committee is going to earn by auction as profits as a social objective of the Act is to make available the places for marketing in the market area, and market yards and this facility is not to be confined to the rich businessmen, but may also be made available and be made to reach common man as well poor and weak dealing in agricultural produce and that the poor may also get the benefit. So, this justification, as asserted, I am unable to swallow, and it cannot be taken to be keeping pace with the objectives of the Act. ( 13 ) ANYWAY, the order impugned in this case is invalid and could not be passed, as it had been passed in view of the principle of promissory estoppel applicable and even if it is, otherwise, be taken such an order which has got the civil consequences, could not be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice keeping pace with social and economic justice. ( 14 ) THE facts of this case indicate, the shop had been allotted,no doubt, by the resolution, it has also been mentioned with the approval of the Director, that the land had been allotted in favour of the petitioner and the resolution itself communicated that it was allotted with the approval of the Director. It was allotted subject to deposit and investment, firstly, of Rs. 43,368/-, with the Market Committee. Market Committee accepted that amount, then it executed an agreement-cum-lease-cum-sale in pursuance of which, the petitioner started with the process of putting up the construction and did put the construction, namely, shop-cum-godown. The petitioner must have spent huge amount as claimed by the petitioner and, as stated by the petitioner's Counsel to the tune of rupees two lakhs. The amount invested may be less than Rs. two lakhs, but it would be huge and must have been invested in the construction of shop-cum-godown. The 3rd respondent did sleep over. They did not cancel the lease earlier and return the money with interest, instead, they waited to see that the constructions are completed and when constructions have been completed and petitioner started carrying on the business in the shop-cum-godown, thereafter, they directed cancellation of the allotment order and the transaction exhibited by documents of agreement-cum-lease-cum-sale, dated 27th March, 1997. It is on representation of the respondents' Market Committee, and the approval granted by the Director himself, the land was allotted and petitioner was called upon to pay the huge sum of Rs. 43,368/-, which he deposited in pursuance of letter dated 16-4-1997, which required the petitioner to complete the construction work and to construct the building within the time stipulated in the allotment order. Petitioner had to work hard, even he had to take the loan and did construct the building, that is, shop-cum-godown, after investing an huge amount. ( 15 ) THE shop-cum-godown is a permanent construction and inevery case, petitioner would have invested something, even it may be Rs. two lakhs, at least two lakhs or more, but it was on the representations of the respondents and their asking the petitioner to raise the construction which was at their instance and representation including Director who had approved the allotment order, the petitioner had invested huge amount and in every case, more than two lakh rupees as needed. two lakhs, at least two lakhs or more, but it was on the representations of the respondents and their asking the petitioner to raise the construction which was at their instance and representation including Director who had approved the allotment order, the petitioner had invested huge amount and in every case, more than two lakh rupees as needed. After the money has been invested as the petitioner had acted on the representations of the Market Committee and the Director. These authorities were estopped and were barred from cancelling the allotment order, except and subject to the conditions contained in the allotment or the terms of lease-cum-sale agreement, that is, in case of the breach of the conditions of the agreement or of allotment, the authorities could after following the necessary principles of natural justice and fairplay, have cancelled it. ( 16 ) SO, in my opinion, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. Further, in this case, as it has been asserted that the cancellation of allotment has been done without any opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner before passing of the cancellation order. ( 17 ) IT is well-settled principle of law that orders having civil consequences, financial or otherwise, which may adversely affect a person, cannot be passed and could not be passed against that person without that person being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. ( 18 ) THUS considered, on the basis of grounds as mentioned above, the order impugned suffers from error of jurisdiction and error of law. This writ petition is as such, deserves to be allowed. The order impugned dated 28-8-1997, as well as the direction of the Director dated 8-8-1997, deserve to be quashed. ( 19 ) THE writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, copy of which annexed as H, is hereby declared to be null, void and ineffective and inoperative. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the shop-cum-godown, as well as not to implement the order annexure-H. ( 20 ) ACTS of fairness shown by the learned Counsels on both the sides, the costs are made easy.