JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 18.9.98 (Annx. 6), by which the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in January, 1996 has been cancelled. 2. While allowing the revision, the Revisional Authority has recorded the following finding of facts: (i) That the Panchayat has not given any finding regarding the old possession of the allottees nor there is any finding to that effect : (ii) There has been no inquiry by the Panchayat regarding their old possession on the said land ; (iii) The provisions rules 257-266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 had not been observed ; (iv) There is no evidence on record to show that before making the allotment, the Panchayat had made arty spot inspection ; (v) No objections have been invited as mandatorily required under the Rules before making the allotment ; (vi) No approval has been sought from the Competent Authority as mandatorily required under the Rules ; (vii) There is no explanation why the land had been sold at a meagre price of 15 paise per square foot ; (viii) In absence of any finding that the allottees had been in possession of the respective land, the plot could have been sold by auction ; and (ix) As the allotment was dehors the Rules, it was inconsequential and meaningless and was liable to be set aside. 3. There is specific procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1961 to dispose of the Panchayat land. Rule 257 provides for preparation of the plan : rule 258 provides that after preparation of the plan, three of the panchas duly nominated by the Panchayat would have a local inspection of the site and submit report to the Panchayat; under rule 259, provisions, decision is to be taken whether the sale should be made or not and; under rule 260, the Panchayat is bound to invite objections from general public whether the land could be disposed of and then, after disposal of the objections, if any, received in response to notice, the property shall be disposed of by the Panchayat after giving the parties concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard under rule 261. It is mandatory for the Panchayat to sell the land by auction under rule 262. It is mandatory for the Panchayat to sell the land by auction under rule 262. However, an exception has been carved out to the same by enacting rule 266, by providing three particular clauses to dispose of the property by negotiation and the said clauses are:- (a) where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land; and (c) where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of schedule castes and scheduled tribes or other backward classes. 4. Therefore, before applying the provisions of rule 266, it is obligatory on the part of Panchayat to determine whether there is any plausible claim of title of any third party or not and, if the land is sold by way of auction, it will so fetch higher price or not. It is also necessary to determine whether. for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode for disposal of the land. 5. In the instant case, no such grounds are available on record, nor petitioners have submitted that such a course had been adopted. It is not permissible to deviate from the aforesaid scheme provided under the Rules for the disposal of the property, as held by Division Bench of this Court in Giri Raj and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1986 (1) WLN 707 . 6. In Sacchidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with public property, the executive must make an endeavour to dispose it of by public auction or by inviting tenders, though that is the ordinary rule, may not be an invariable rule. Where there are compelling circumstances necessitating the departure therefrom then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Therefore, in case of dealing with public property, certain percepts and principles have to be observed and public interest is the paramount consideration and when a public property is disposed of, they should try to get the maximum price. 7. In Ram & Shyam Co. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Therefore, in case of dealing with public property, certain percepts and principles have to be observed and public interest is the paramount consideration and when a public property is disposed of, they should try to get the maximum price. 7. In Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "A welfare State exists for largest good of the larger number, moreso when it proclaims to be the socialist State dedicated to eliminate poverty. All its attempts should be to obtain the best available prove while disposing of its property because the greater is the revenue, the welfare activities will get a fillip and shot in the arm. Financial constrains may weaken the tempo of activities. Such an approach serves the larger public purpose of extending welfare activities primarily for which the Constitution envisages the setting-up of a Welfare State." 8. In Chenchu Rami Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1158 , the Hon'ble Apex Court indicated that the best method of disposal of public property is by public auction and not by private negotiation and the authorities entrusted with care of public property are required to show exemplary vigilance. Similar view has been reiterated in Rashbihari Panda v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 SC 1081 ; M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 ; and State of Haryana v. Jage Ram, AIR 1983 SC 1207 . 9. In Parambikula A.P.O.A. Assn. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3092 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court put great emphasis to the Bentham's Theory of Utility, i.e. greatest good for the greatest number of people. It means that if the land had been put to auction and higher price could have been fetched for the property, the money could have been used for the welfare of a larger number of persons. Moreso, the entire land in dispute had been allotted to the same family, though it could have been allotted to at least three families. It is beyond any reason of understanding as if the husband had got the allotment, how the wife could claim it. 10. Moreso, the entire land in dispute had been allotted to the same family, though it could have been allotted to at least three families. It is beyond any reason of understanding as if the husband had got the allotment, how the wife could claim it. 10. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that when the auction of the State or its instrumentalities is not as per the rules or regulations and supported by a statute, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid. 11. In Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855 , the Supreme Court observed that the rules or the regulations are blinding on the authorities." 12. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sukhdeo Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331 , has observed as under : "The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. In cases of statutory bodies there is no personal element whatsoever because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies, the element of public and the support of statute require observance of rules and regulations. Failure to observe requirements by statutory bodies is enforced by courts by declaring (action) in violation of rules and regulations to be void. This Court has repeatedly observed that whenever a man's rights are affected by decision taken under statutory powers, the Court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute." 13. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1073 and Commissioner of Police v. Gordhan, AIR 1952 SC 16 . Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1073 and Commissioner of Police v. Gordhan, AIR 1952 SC 16 . In both the cases, the Apex Court relied upon the judgment of the House of Lord in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214 , wherein it was observed as under : "There may be something in the nature of thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so." 14. In Commissioner of Police (supra) the Apex Court observed as under : "Public authorities cannot play fast and lose with the powers vested in them and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order. An enabling power of this kind conferred for public reasons and for the public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it be evaded, performance of it can be compelled." 15. In Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 88 , the Apex Court observed as under : "If the laws and principles are eroded by such institutions, it not only pollutes its functioning deteriorating its standard but also exhibits wrong channel adopted. If there is any erosion or descending by those who control the activities all expectations and hopes are destroyed. If the institutions perform dedicated and sincere service with the highest morality it would not only up lift many but bring back even a limping society to its normalcy." 16. In Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 44 , and held that "the exercise of power should not be made against the spirit of the provisions of the statute, otherwise it would tend towards arbitrariness." 17. In Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 44 , and held that "the exercise of power should not be made against the spirit of the provisions of the statute, otherwise it would tend towards arbitrariness." 17. In Purushottam v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 49 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the similar view. 18. A Full Bench of this Court in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1688/1983 , vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2000, has considered the aspect of interference in allotment at a very belated stage and held that the revisional powers can be exercised at any time provided (i) the order has been obtained by fraud; (ii) order is obtained by mis-representation or collusion with public authority by the private party; (iii) order is against public interest; (iv) the order is without jurisdiction; (v) io order is in clear violation of the statutory rules or provision of the Act; and (vi) order is void/void ab initio being against public policy or otherwise.The Court further observed as under : "The Common Law doctrine of public policy can be enforced wherever an action affects/offends public interest or where harmful result of permitting the injury to the public at large is evident. In such type of cases, revisional power can be exercised by the Authority at any time either suo motu or as and when such orders are brought to their notice." 19. In Maharaja Chintamani Sarannath v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 16 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even if the order is found to be bad/illegal/without jurisdiction, the Court may not interfere "if setting aside the order amounts to reviving an invalid order. 20. Moreso, it is settled proposition of law that if the Statute provides for an approval of a higher Authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it gets the approval and the order remains inconsequential. In the instant case, admittedly, it is not petitioner's case that approval had ever been granted by the Competent Authority. 20. Moreso, it is settled proposition of law that if the Statute provides for an approval of a higher Authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it gets the approval and the order remains inconsequential. In the instant case, admittedly, it is not petitioner's case that approval had ever been granted by the Competent Authority. Therefore it cannot be said that the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner had any sanctity whatsoever, for the reason that the matter goes to the root of the cause and in case where approval of the higher Authority is required the Lower Body did not have any competence to finalise the order. Thus, the order becomes nullity for want of competence/jurisdiction and remains inconsequential and unenforceable. (Vide Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 2295 ; State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors., AIR 1972 SC 1816 ; State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1234 ; and Laxmikant & Ors. v. Satyawan & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2052 ). 21. In the instant case, as the allotments had been made in flagrant violation of the Statutory Rules, no public purpose/interest would be served by saving them. Moreso, illegality of such a striking magnitude cannot be sanctified for any reason whatsoever. The facts and circumstances of the cases do not warrant any review of revisional order passed by the learned District Collector, by which allotments in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled. 22. A public policy embodied in the statutory rules mandatorily provides that the allotments must be made by public auction. An exception have been carved out in the said rule that property can be allotted by private negotiation under rule 266 in exceptional circumstances incorporated therein. There is nothing on record to show that before resorting to the powers under rule 266, the Allotting Authority had taken recourse to the normal mode of allotment provided under the Rules, rather it straight way resorted to the provisions of rule 266, i.e. sale by private negotiation, which was wholly impermissible. Therefore, under no circumstance, the judgment and order impugned requires interference. 23. Thus, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******