M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 4-7-2001 which has been communicated by order dated 11-7-2001 Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is alleged that an auction was held on 10-10-2000 in respect of the commercial plot No. C-5 in Raksha Puram Awasiya Yojna, District Meerut and it is alleged that the petitioner was the highest bidder and the plot was allotted to him @ Rs. 1,540 per sq. metre. Thus total cost of the plot was Rs. 15,40,000. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is alleged that the said bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents and by order dated 30/31-10-2000 the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the total cost of the plot within a month vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner deposited 20% of the amount of the total cost on 24-11-2000 i. e. Rs. 3,08,000 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thus the petitioner has alleged that he has deposited the entire required amount with the respondents. Photostat copy of the letter issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 14-2-2001 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In compliance with this letter the petitioner deposited the first instalment with 18% interest on 10-4-2001 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that the petitioner has complied with all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment order, but all of a sudden a news item was published in the Dainik Jagran newspaper on 4/5-7-2001 stating that his allotment has been cancelled. Photostat copy of the news item is Annexure-5 to the writ petition and a photostat copy of the order dated 11-7-2001 is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 3. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the cancellation was done without giving show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving reasons. This shows non-application of mind. It is alleged that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the MDA (Meerut Development Authority ). 5. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the cancellation was done without giving show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving reasons. This shows non-application of mind. It is alleged that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the MDA (Meerut Development Authority ). 5. In paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that an enquiry was got done by the Chairman of the Development Authority through the District Magistrate, Meerut, and it was found that one plot of the Raksha Puram Awasiya Yojna was sold at a higher price than the price fetched by the plots allotted in favour of the petitioner through the auction, and hence the cancellation order was passed. In paragraph 6 of the same it is stated that the Commissioner, Meerut Division is also Chairman of the MDA and therefore, he has full right to enquire about any tender or auction done by the Authority, and in case he finds that the auction has been finalised at a price lower than the plots sold in the Raksha Puram Awasiya Yojna he could direct the Vice Chairman to cancel the offer of allotment. In paragraph 10 of the same it is stated that the petitioner has been refunded the entire amount through a Bankers Cheque dated 10-7-2001. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit. 6. In paragraph 6 of the same it is stated that the minimum price n the auction fixed by the respondents was Rs. 1,450 per sq. metre, whereas the petitioners bid was Rs. 1,540 per sq. metre which was the highest bid in the auction on 10-10-2000. It is further stated that one Plot No. C-6 of the same scheme was allotted to one Surendra Pal Singh in the auction proceedings after six months i. e. 23-4-2001. The aforesaid plot was allotted to Surendra Pal Singh at Rs. 1475 per sq. metre, whereas the minimum rate had been fixed at Rs. 1450 per sq. metre. Thus the petitioners bid was higher than that of Surendra Pal Singh, but the bid of Surendra Pal Singh has not been cancelled. Hence it is alleged that the allegation that the petitioner was allotted a plot at a lower rate is not correct. metre, whereas the minimum rate had been fixed at Rs. 1450 per sq. metre. Thus the petitioners bid was higher than that of Surendra Pal Singh, but the bid of Surendra Pal Singh has not been cancelled. Hence it is alleged that the allegation that the petitioner was allotted a plot at a lower rate is not correct. True copy of the allotment order dated 23-4-2001 in favour of Surendra Pal Singh is annexed as Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. 7. In paragraph 7 of the same it is stated that the petitioner has no knowledge about the enquiry held by the Commissioner and no show cause notice was issued to him at any stage nor was he provided opportunity of hearing in that enquiry. It is further stated that respondents have not refunded any amount to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 6,93,000 is still lying with the respondents. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondents have accepted an instalment dated 10-4-2001 and hence they are estoppe from cancelling the contract. 8. In our opinion, the action of the respondents appears to be arbitrary. No doubt there is no absolute legal requirement to accept the highest bid in an auction vide Surendra Pal Singh v. Zila Parishad, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 925; Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Regional Food Controller, 2000 (2) JCLR 437 (All); 2000 (39) ALR 717 etc. 9. However, it is clearly well settled that the authorities cannot act arbitrarily as arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . 10. In M. M. Palan Evam N. S. Samiti v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1995 (26) ALR 15, a Division Bench of this Court held that if the Commissioner relies on an enquiry report for refusing approval to the highest bid without giving opportunity of hearing it is illegal. The same view has taken in Krishna Prasad v. Notified Area, 1990 AWC 629 and in 1987 ALJ 89. 11. In the present case it appears that some enquiry was held behind the petitioners back by the Commissioner and his bid was cancelled even after it had been approved and he had paid the first instalment. In our opinion, this was clearly arbitrary and illegal in view of the above decisions. 11. In the present case it appears that some enquiry was held behind the petitioners back by the Commissioner and his bid was cancelled even after it had been approved and he had paid the first instalment. In our opinion, this was clearly arbitrary and illegal in view of the above decisions. In paragraphs 5 and 10 of the counter-affidavit it is admitted that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. 12. For the reasons given above the petition is allowed. 13. Impugned order dated 4-7-2001 as communicated by order dated 11-7-2001 is quashed. Petition allowed. .