JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.- The two writ petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.1.1999, contained in Annexure-15 to this writ application, passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing . Board, Patna, whereby the shops, which were allotted to the petitioners, i.e. shop nos. N41 and N42 respectively by Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Parsudih, Jamshedpur has been cancelled. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that a notice was published in the newspaper by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur, calling for applications from the intending allottees by 22.5.1992 for allotment of shops 'of three different sizes, i.e. 15' x 12'. 8' x 12' and 10' x 12' under selt-finance construction scheme in Parsudih Market at Jamshedpur. Alongwith the applications a bank draft of the amount of 30% of the estimated cost mentioned in the notice was also to be attached. It was specifically mentioned in the notice that preference in allotment would be given to those persons, who were displaced in course of removal of encroachment drive. The petitioners also applied alongwith the "requisite bank draft for allotment of shop of the size 15' x 2'. The estimated cost of which was Rs. 37.800/-. Alongwith the application for allotment the petitioners stated that they were Interested to take allotment of snops situated in the ground floor only and if they can be allotted the shops in the ground floor only then the money may be accepted. 3. The applications and. Bank Draft submitted by the petitioners were accepted and, thereafter, the petitioners time to time deposited the money as demanded by the respondents for the allotment of the shops, which were being constructed. It is not disputed that among the total number of applications, 86 applications were of displaced persons. Altogether 188 shops were constructed, i.e. 94 shops in the ground floor and 94 shops on the first floor. The petitioners were offered allotment of the shops on the first floor to which they raised their objections by stating that at the initial stage itself alongwith the applications they had put a condition that only if they are allotted the shops in the ground floor then they would accept otherwise the bank draft submitted by them may not be accepted. On this plea, the petitioners requested to allot them the shops situated on the ground floor. 4. On this plea, the petitioners requested to allot them the shops situated on the ground floor. 4. The request of the petitioners for allotment of the shops in the ground floor was placed before the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur. The meeting of the Committee was held on 10.1.1997 and it considered the request of the petitioners and then it was decided that these two petitioners be allotted a place 15' x 12' each in the godown premises, which was laying vacant, after getting the same duly repaired. The decision of the committee was communicated to the Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Agriculture Produce Market Board, Jamshedpur with a copy to the petitioners. Accordingly, necessary repairs and constructions were made in the said godown of the market area and, thereafter, two shops namely N41 and N42 were allotted to the petitioners and a communication to this effect was sent to them by letter dated 25.8.1998 contained in Annexure-7 to this writ application. Consequent thereto these two petitioners were asked to execute agreement, which was executed by these two petitioners vide Annexure-8 and 8/1 to the writ application. After the agreement the petitioners took possession of the shops in question. After the execution of the agreement and handing over the possession of the aioresaid two shops, i.e. A/41 and A/42, to the petitioners, a writ application was filed before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 1951 of 1998(R) by Parsudih Shopkeepers Association, Jamshedpur challenging the allotment of the shops to the petitioners and for a direction for cancellation of allotment of the said two shops in favour of these two petitioners. Though these two writ petitioners were not made parties in the said writ petition but as it appears from Annexure-16, i.e. the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition on 25.8.1998 that the said writ petition was disposed of in view of the fact that the writ petitioners, i.e. Parsudih Shopkeepers Association had already represented the matter before the Bihar Agriculture Produce Marketing Board for the same relief and, as such, without going into the controversy, raised in the writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Marketing Board to decide the representation filed by the said writ petitioners in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months. 5. 5. Consequently, the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna, passed the impugned order as contained in Anexure-15 to the writ application, whereby he cancelled the allotment of the said two shops made in favour of the petitioners. 6. From the impugned order of the Managing Director, it appears that he has taken note of the fact that the petitioner Sanshi Prasad Sao has made certain constructions over and above the area allotted to him in order to attract the customers at his own cost with the concurrence of the Market Committee. The Managing Director has held that the conditions put by these two petitioners for allotment of the shops on the ground floor only, should not have been accepted by the Market Committee since there was no such clause in the notice, which was published in the newspaper and, therefore, change of shops from first floor originally offered to the petitioners to the ground floor in favour of the petitioners was not justified. It was further held that the Committee showed undue favour to these petitioners in allotting the shops by making repair of the godown in the ground floor. 7. Mr. Ram Salak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that after allotment of the shops to the petitioners and after having entered into an agreement with them and after accepting the rent for such allotment, the Managing Director had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment of the shops made in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that the settlement of the shops in favour of the petitioners by duly constituted Market Committee, Jamshedpur, can by (sic-no?) stretch of imagination be said to be unreasonable. The ground shown by the Managing Director, i.e. Respondent No. 2 for canceling the allotment in the impugned order is wholly untenable. In this regard he further submitted that the godown, which was laying vacant, was repaired and, thereafter, was allotted to the petitioners and for which no allottee would have any grievance nor any particular allottee raised any grievance against the allotment of the shops in question in favour of the petitioners. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sworn by the Marketing Supervisor of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur. 9. Mr. VP. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sworn by the Marketing Supervisor of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur. 9. Mr. VP. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that Respondent NO.2 found that the resolution of the Committee dated 10.1.1997, whereby the petitioners were allotted the shops in the ground floor was not in the interest of the Market Committee. He further submitted that a thorough enquiry was made and then. it was found that these two petitioners were not the displaced persons and, therefore, it was held that the resolution of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur was erroneous and thereby the Managing Director by the impugned order, set aside the decision taken by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur and cancelled the allotment of the shops made in favour of the present petitioners. 10. Parsudih Shopkeepers Association, Jamshedpur, who had earlier filed the writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1951 of 1998(R) challenging the allotment of these two petitioners, is respondent no. 5 in the present writ application. 11. Mr. Zafar Alam. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 5. i.e. the Association, has submitted that he has nothing to say in particular over and above what has been argued on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 12. On consideration of the respective case of the parties and rival contentions made by their respective counsel, I hold that since the respondents Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur accepted the offer of the petitioners for allotment of the shops on a condition that their money should be accepted only when the shops in the ground floor are allotted to them and then after having allotted the shops in favour of the petitioners on the ground floor and after execution of the agreement by these two petitioners and after accepting the rent from them. the respondents including the Respondent No. 2 was not justified in canceling the allotment of the shops in question in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the same was unreasonable and not in the interest of the Committee. the respondents including the Respondent No. 2 was not justified in canceling the allotment of the shops in question in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the same was unreasonable and not in the interest of the Committee. I fail to understand as to how the said decision of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee in allotting the shops in favour of the petitioners was not in the interest of the Committee when they were allotted the shops in an area where the godown was situated and the same was allotted to the petitioners after making certain repairs and constructions. By allotting the space in the said godown, which was laying vacant, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur was certainly benefited. It was well within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur to consider the request of the petitioners for allotment of the shops in the ground floor and the said Committee after due deliberation decided to allot the shops in the ground floor to the petitioners in the interest of the Market Committee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur in allotting the said shops in question in favour of the petitioners, was against the interest of the Market Committee. The said allotment of shops in question in favour of the petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable in any manner. Moreover, none of the allottee or any person has come forward against the allotment of the shops in question in favour of the petitioners, who can be said to be actually aggrieved. Neither any other displaced person nor any person, who was' entitled to have any preference as mentioned in the notice (Annexure-1), has come forward to challenge the allotment of the shops in question in favour of the petitioners. 13. In this view of the matter, I find that the order of the Managing Director in setting aside the resolution of the Agricul1ure Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur dated 10.1.1997 and cancellation of the allotment of shops bearing nos. A/41 and A/42 in favour of these two petitioners, was wholly unjustifierl 14. 13. In this view of the matter, I find that the order of the Managing Director in setting aside the resolution of the Agricul1ure Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur dated 10.1.1997 and cancellation of the allotment of shops bearing nos. A/41 and A/42 in favour of these two petitioners, was wholly unjustifierl 14. In view of the discussions and findings above, this writ application is allowed and the order contained in Annexure15 to this writ application passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna is hereby set aside and consequently the resolution of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur dated 10.1.1997 and the allotment of the shops bearing nos. A/41 and A/42 respectively in favour of the petitioners are hereby revived. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.