Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.1992 (Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, canceling the entire auction proceedings of the shops held on 211.1989 at Amber and has further challenged the consequential orders dated 18.02.1992 separately issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amber for shop Nos. 12 and 13, which were approved by the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Amber as per auction notice. 2. In brief the relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement was published in the newspaper notifying that on 25/211.1989, commercial plots of shop Nos. 11 to 14 having size of 20x 25 will be auctioned and shop No. 15 having size of 25 x 15 was also included in the said auction proceedings. The petitioner was highest bidder for shop Nos. 12 and 13, therefore, he had deposited 25% of the amount as per the condition of auction notice. Subsequently, he has also deposited 75% of the balance amount on 30.07.1990 for both the shops bearing number 12 and 13 in compliance of the orders of the Executive Officer dated 11.07.1990 and 25.07.1990 after approval of the said auction by the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Amber. The petitioner has also purchased stamps as per the direction of the Executive Officer for execution and Registration of perpetual lease and got the proforma of the lease deed typed on the same, as per the Rajasthan Municipality (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short the rules of 1974) for shop Nos. 12 and 13, which was to the tune of Rs. 8,905/-and 12,405/-respectively and submitted to the Executive Officer. When nothing favourable was heard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Minister, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Director, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan and then again to the Minister, Local Self Department, in between 03.02.1992 to 30.07.1992. On 04.01.1992, the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan cancelled the auction proceedings with a direction to refund the amount deposited by the purchasers on the ground that neither sanction of Town Planner was taken nor the auction proceedings were held in presence of the officer, who was supposed to be present. Thereafter the consequential orders were passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amber on 18.02.1992. Thereafter the consequential orders were passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amber on 18.02.1992. The petitioner has also averred that the Notified Area Committee was converted into Municipal Board, Amber and subsequently it was merged in Jaipur Municipal Corporation. On 19.05.1993, the Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation wrote a letter to the Director, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur that there was no need for taking approval from Chief Town Planner for the land less than 1500 Sq. Yds/stray plots and the present land is less than 1500 Sq Yds. and further the earlier auctions were set-aside on account of inadequate bid and the entire amount has been deposited by the bidder of the present auction, therefore, in order to avoid any kind of litigation and further making payment of interest on the said amount will cause financial loss. The land is not useful and on the said plot commercial activities are going on by putting Tripals. In view of above, the auction of the plot be sanctioned. 3. The petitioner has also referred a proceeding dated 212.1993 which was in the nature of factual report as well recommendation to the Minister by the Director recommending the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated person for the reason that they are bona fide purchasers and it was for the Municipality to take approval of the scheme and not for the petitioner and the Collectors representative was present despite that favourable recommendation, which is legal and proper, the cancellation proceedings have not been withdrawn. Therefore, the petitioner was left with no other alternate except to file the present writ petition. 4. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed common reply and the Municipality has filed separate reply. 5. The Municipality in its reply has averred that the amount has been deposited without any administrative sanction. The Municipality has further averred in its reply that the area was much more than 1500 Sq. Yds. and as regards Directors recommendation, wherein the area has been shown less than 1500 Sq. Yds., they have pleaded ignorance. The Para 12 of the writ petition wherein Jaipur Municipal Corporations letter dated 19.05.1993 was referred and annexed as Annexure-17, the Municipality simply not admitted the contents of that para, as stated therein. With regard to compliance of the Rules of 1974, they have only averred that the auction was contrary to the Rules of 1974. 6. The Para 12 of the writ petition wherein Jaipur Municipal Corporations letter dated 19.05.1993 was referred and annexed as Annexure-17, the Municipality simply not admitted the contents of that para, as stated therein. With regard to compliance of the Rules of 1974, they have only averred that the auction was contrary to the Rules of 1974. 6. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which have passed the main impugned order, have submitted in reply to the writ petition that when it was brought to the notice of the Director, Local Bodies by the Collector, Jaipur vide his letter dated 27.05.1991 that the auction of 8 commercial shops situated at Mawatha, Amber was not in accordance with law; the scheme as per the provisions of Rules 8, 9 and 24(1)(c) of the Rules of 1974, more particularly not taking sanction of the concerned authority and the auction proceedings were carried out in the absence of the authorities, as mentioned in Annexure-A appended to the Rules of 1974, the order of cancellation of auction proceedings dated 04.01.1992 was passed. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted the presence of the Sub Divisional Officer at the time of auction of some of the shops and have further stated that he was not present at the time of auction of the shops in dispute and the order-sheet was got signed subsequently. As regards recommendation of the Director, the respondents have stated that the same is simply a noting of the department and creates no right. 7. The petitioner has filed separate rejoinder to the reply filed by the Municipal Corporation and by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. In rejoinder to the reply filed the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner has submitted that as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974, which deals with allotment and sale of non-residential land and further as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974; the procedure prescribed in Annexure-A under Rule 14 is to be followed. Clause b(ii) of the aforesaid annexure clearly provides that the auction shall take place under the supervision of the Collector concerned or his representative and in the instant case, Shri Shailendra Agarwal, SDO was present throughout in the capacity of the representative of the Collector, Jaipur and he has also confirmed his presence vide DO letter dated 13.08.1993 written to Director, Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner has highlighted one important fact in the rejoinder that the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Amber has approved the auction and the auction stands finalized but the respondents have not filed any reply to the said averment. He has also submitted that the total area of all the five shops of the auction notice is calculated and the same comes less than 1500 Sq. Yds. 9. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner has submitted that there was no need to prepare any kind of scheme for the area of shops in question which is much lesser than 1500 Sq. Yds. and further when the Chairman has accepted the bid, the balance 75% amount was deposited and further the stamps have also been submitted, therefore, the auction proceedings stand finalized and it was incumbent for the respondents to execute the lease deed. It has also been submitted that Shri Shailendra Agarwal was present as the Collectors representative at that time and thus, there was no irregularity in the auction proceedings. 10. The petitioner had filed an amendment application, which was allowed by this Court on 05.03.1999. By the said amendment application, the petitioner has added grounds (d) and (e) and has made specific challenge to the authority of the respondents to cancel the entire auction proceedings and consequential prayer No. II-A has also been added whereby the order of the Deputy Secretary dated 04.01.1992 was challenged alongwith cancellation orders dated 18.02.1992. 11. The Respondent Nos 1 and 2 in their reply to the amended writ petition, have submitted that the petitioner was aware of cancellation of auction proceedings and can take the money back as written in the order dated 04.01.1992. 10.12. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that since the area of all the five shops was less than 1500 Sq. Yds., therefore, scheme was not required to be sanctioned by the Chief Town Planner under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1974. 10.12. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that since the area of all the five shops was less than 1500 Sq. Yds., therefore, scheme was not required to be sanctioned by the Chief Town Planner under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1974. The further submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1974, the procedure for auction of non-residential land is required to be followed as per Annexure-A appended to the Rules of 1974 and according to Annexure-A, Note b(ii), the auction proceedings shall to take place under the supervision of the Collector concerned or his representative and the Executive Officer of the Board. Here in the instant case, Collectors representative Shri Shailendra Agarwal, SDO was present throughout in the proceedings and the presence of the Executive Officer of the Board has not been disputed. Therefore both the grounds, on which the impugned order has been passed on 04.01.1992, are wholly untenable. The Counsel has also submitted that under the Rules of 1974, neither the State Government nor the Director has been given any power to cancel the auction, which was finalized by the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee and further subsequently when he deposited 75% of the balance amount as well as also proforma of the lease deed typed on the stamps and submited to the respondents, a legal right has been created in his favour for execution of the lease deed. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is also that the respondents being a Government and statutory body are under an obligation to adopt fair, just and equitable procedure after taking into consideration objectively in a manner, which is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose of public good and in general public interest. They cannot act arbitrarily. Their each action, even in contractual field, is to be tested on touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment s of the Supreme Court in LIC of India & Anr. vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors., reported in 1995 (5) SCC 482 , State of Himalchal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ganesh Wood Products & Ors. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment s of the Supreme Court in LIC of India & Anr. vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors., reported in 1995 (5) SCC 482 , State of Himalchal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ganesh Wood Products & Ors. etc reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 485, Page 488 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., reported in 1979 (3) SCC 489 , Para 10. 13. The Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scheme was required to be approved by the Chief Town Planner under Rules 8, 9 of the Rules of 1974 and even if the same is treated as stray plot, then approval of the Collector is needed as per Rule 24(c) of the Rules of 1974. 14. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. .15. Before proceeding further to consider the rival submission of the parties, it is worthwhile to refer Rules 8, 9, 15(1) 15(2) and 24 of the Rajasthan Municipality (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and Clause b (ii) of Annexure-A appended to the Rajasthan Municipality (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, which read as under:- .8. Preparation of scheme by the Board.- (1) Before disposing of the land, every board shall prepare a scheme for all land exceeding 1500 Sq. yards in area and exercising jurisdiction thereon showing sub-division of land into plots of various sizes for residential purpose and indicate lands for parks and play grounds, educational institutions, hospitals, dispensaries, cinemas, markets and such other amenities and facilities as may be required provided that plots for residential purposes shall generally be restricted to the maximum of 800 Sq. yards. .(2) Inthe Scheme the plots for allotment and sale by auction shall be clearly indicated and the area of such residential plots for allotment shall not exceed 300 sq. yds. .9. yards. .(2) Inthe Scheme the plots for allotment and sale by auction shall be clearly indicated and the area of such residential plots for allotment shall not exceed 300 sq. yds. .9. Approval of the Scheme by the Chief Town Planner.- (1) The scheme so prepared under Rule 8 shall be submitted to the Chief Town Planner and Architectural Adviser, Rajasthan or his representative authorised by him in this behalf , who shall on receipt of such a Scheme scrutinize it keeping in view the provisions of master plan of that city or town, if any, and in the absence of the master plan he shall conform to the over all development plan of that city or town to be prepared at a later date and return the same technically approved to the Board considered with or without modifications, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt falling which the scheme shall be deemed to have been technically approved by him. .15. Allotment and sale of non-residential Land.- (1) Land for non-residential purposes shall be allotted to public and charitable institution Commercial Statutory or non-statutory institutions or bodies. Central Government Departments or Educated unemployed Youths under the self-employment scheme or to any other persons for commercial use on terms and conditions prescribed under these rules. .(2) Save as provided in the following sub-rules, Land of Commercial nature shall be disposed of by public auction as prescribed in Annexure-A. .24. Stray plots.-(1) Individual or stray plots which are lying vacant shall be disposed of by public auction in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 14, subject to the following conditions:- .(a) The Board concerned shall prepare a list in the register prescribed in Annexure C. .(b) The building line shall be determined before disposal of such plots; and .(c) Obtain prior approval of the Collector concerned; .(d) The land use shall normally be the same as of the adjoining plots. .(2) Any stray plot having an area less than 1500 sq. meters and not covered by the scheme aforesaid, or any other scheme shall not be sold, leased or otherwise transferred in any manner other than by public auction in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule (14) of these rules. .(2) Any stray plot having an area less than 1500 sq. meters and not covered by the scheme aforesaid, or any other scheme shall not be sold, leased or otherwise transferred in any manner other than by public auction in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule (14) of these rules. The Board shall prepare a list of all such stray plots in their jurisdiction and record and authenticate the same in a register to be kept for the purpose in the form prescribed in Annexure-C. Clause b(ii) of Annexure-A appended to the Rajasthan Municipality (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974: Annexure-A b(ii) The auction proceedings shall to take place under the supervision of the Collector concerned or his representative and the Executive Officer of the Board. 16. 16. The relevant auction notification Anenxure-1, relevant portion of the order dated 19.05.1993 (Annexure-17) and recommendation directions dated 212.1993, which have not been controverted specifically, are as follows:- Auction notification Annexure-1: dk;kZ y; uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k desVh] vkesj Øekad% ,Q vk@89 fnukad%& uhykeh lwpuk a fnukad 25@26-11-1989 dks e/;kUg 2-00 cts lk;dky 5 cts rd nykjkeckx ds lkeus uEcj nl vkesj esa O;olkf ;d Hkw[kaMksa dh uhykeh dh tk,xhA ftudk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS & s 1- nqdku la[;k 11 ls 14 uki 20x25 oxZQqV izR; dA 2- nqdku la[;k 15 uki 20x15 oxZ QqV cksyhnkrk dks 2]000@& #i;s vekur jkf'k tek djkuh gksxhA vafre cksyh nkrk dks ekSds ij Hkw[kaM dh cksyh dk ikap izfrkr Hkkx uxn rRdky tek djkuk Vs esgksxkA 20 izfrkr jkf'k 24 ?kaa uxn tek djkuh gksxh 'ks"k jde vFkkZr 3@4 jkf'k uhykeh ds i`f"V i= ds tkjh dh frfFk ls 30 fnol dh vof/k esa uxn tek djkuh gksxh vU;Fkk fcuk dksbZ lwpuk ds 1@4 jkf'k tCr dj yh tkosxhA Hkw[k.M jnn dj fn;k tkosxkA vU;krZsdk;kZy; ds fdlh Hkh dk;Z fnol dks ns[kh tk ldrh gSA ¼jkdsk'k 'kekZ½ vf/k”kk"kh vf/kdkjh uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k desVh] vkesj uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k desVh Relevant portion of the order dated 19.05.1993 (Annexure-17 ): dk;kZy; uxj fuxe] t;iqj Øekad% vkj- ,-@ts-,e-lh-@11@fnukad 19-05-1993 funskd] LFkkuh; fudk; foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqjA fo"k;% vkesj fLFkr ekoBs ij uhykeh }kjk foØ; fd; sx; sHkw[k.Mksa ds laca/k esaA izlax%& vkidk i= Øekad@,Q@16@79@Mh-,y-ch@91650 fnukad 21-04-1993 egksn;] mijksDr lanHkZ esa pkgh xbZ rF;kRed fVIi.kh funsZkkuqlkj fuEu izdkj gS%& jktLFkku uxj ikfydk uxjh; Hkwfe fu"iknu fu;e] 1974 dh /kkjk 8 o 9 ds vUrxZr 1500 oxZ xt ls de {ks=Qy dh Hkwfe@LVs IykV~l dh Ldhe dh Loh-fr eq[; uxj fu;kstd ls ysuk vko;d ugha r Hkwfe 1500 oxZ xt ls de gksus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k desVh] vkesagSA lanfHkZj }kjk okMZ uEcj 10 ekoBs ds lkeuss O;kolkf;d Hkw[k.M la-11 ls 14 o nqdku uEcj 15 ds O;kolkf;d Hkw[k.Mksa dh uhykeh gsrq 18] 19 o 20-09-1989 dks uhykeh dh xbZ ijUrq uhykeh dh i;kZIr jkf'k uk vkus ds dkj.k uhykeh frfFk fnukad 25-11-1989 o 26-11-1989 j[kh xbZA nqdku uEcj 12]13]o 14 dh fLFkfr bl izdkj gS%& Jh vCnqy oghn dh Lohdkj dh xbZ A bldh 1@4 jkf'k eq- 19450@& #- jlhn la- 5133 fnukad 26-11-1989 }kjk tek gqbZA uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k vkesj ds i= Øekad 739 fnukad 25-07-1990 ds }kjk 3@4 'ks"k jkf'k ekaxs tkus ij Jh oghn us jlhn la[;k 13055 fnukad 30-07-1990 }kjk 58]334@& #- tek djk;s Lohdkj dh xbZA 1@4 jkf'k eq- 26]395@& jlhn la[;k 5134 fnukad 26-11-1989 }kjk tek gqbZA uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k desVh] vkesj ds i= Øaekd 597 fnukad 11-07-1990 ds }kjk 3@4 'ks"k jkf'k ekaxs tkus ij Jh oghn us jlhn la[;k 13054 fnukad 30-07-1990 }kjk eq- 79]169@& #- tek djk;s fofnr gksrk gS fd djhc pkyhl gtkj ds LVkEi jftLVªh gsrq mlus Ø; dj fy;s Fks lEiw.kZ jkf'k ikfydk dks"k esa tek djk yh xbZ ijUrq budksa foØ; foy fn;k tkuk i=koyh esa fofnr ugha gksrk gSA ysekj vxzoky vkbZ-,-,l- ds rRdkyhu uksfVQkbZM ,fj;k desVh] vkesj ds ,l-Mh-,e- Jh kSUnz dq Za uksfVQkbzZM desVh esa lEiw.kZ jkf'k tek gqbZA bu jkf'k;ksx mlh dk;dky es dk;dky esa dk mi;ksZa gks fd vkes x;k D;kas j uxjikfydk ds foy; ds le; fnukad 17-12-1991 dks dksbZ jkf'k uxj fuxe] t;iqj dks ugha feyhA vc izkFkhZx.kkasdks tek dqy jkf'k djhc eq-rhu yk[k #- ,oa ml ij pØorhZ C;kt ;fn uxj ikfydk dks"k ls nsuk iM+k rks fuxe dks vko;d foRrh; gkfu gksuk lEHko gS o U;k;ky;kas esa fookn tkus ij foRrh; Hkkj iM+ ldrk gSA [kjhns x;s LVkEil okLrs jftLVªh ds laca/k easHkh fookn [kM+k gks xh Hkwfe gSldrk gS tcfd ;g vumi;ksA mDr LFkku ij foØ; fd;s x;s Hkw[k.Mksa ij f=iky yxkdj vLFkkbZ O;olkf;d mi;ksx foØsrkvksa }kjk fd;k tk jgk gSA rRdkyhu vkesj uxj ikfydk ds tks vU; fofHkUu izdj.k py jgs gSa muls ;g fHkUu gSA mijksDr fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, Hkw[k.Mksa dks uhykeh dh Loh-fr fn;k tkuk mfpr jgsxkA lknjA layXu & mijksDr vuqlkjA Hkonh; vk;Dr 19-05-1993 uxj fuxe] t;iqjA Recommendation directions dated 212.1993 ek- Lok;Rr kklu ea=h egksn; ds i`"B 22 ij fn;s x;s funsZk dh ikyuk easpkgh xbZ fVIif.k;ka izLrqr gSaA 112- ;g izdj.k rRdkyhu uxj ikfydk vkesj esa dfri; nqdkuksa ds vkcaVu ls lcafa/kr gSA uxjikfydk vkesj esa fLFkr ekoBk ds lkeus 15 O;kolkf;d nqdkuksa dh ;kstuk rS;kj dj 7 ndkuksa dh uhykeh dj mudh i=kofy;ka ftyk dyDVj] t;iqf "kr fd;k j dks vuqeksnukFkZ Hksth xbZ] i= isz tks i=koyh ds i`"B la[;k 1@lh ij gSA ftyk dyDVj }kjk crk;k x;k fd uhykeh ds iwoZ bl ;kstuk dks uxj ikfydk }kjk vuqeksfnr djokuk pkfg;s Fkk tks ugha djk;k x;kA rFkk ;g uhykeh visf{kr vf/kdkjh dh vuqifLFkfr esa dh xbZA 113- ftyk dyDVj ds bl i= ds vk/kkj ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk bu nqdkuksa dk vkcaVu fujLr dj fn;k x;k] -i;k vuqPNsn 30&31@,u dk voykdu djsaA izkFkhZ 1 Jh vCnqy okfgn 2 Jh vCnqy j 3-Jh oghn [kka us ek-Lok;Ùk kklu ea=h egksxQwn; dks izfrosnu iskdj fuosnu fd;k gS fd bu nqdkuksa dh uhykeh tks muds gd esa gS mls fujLr ugha fd;k tkos rFkk mUgsa fu;fer fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ;kas us rdZ fn;k gS fd iFzke rks ;kstuk dk vuqeksnu ugha gksuk mudh xyrh ugha gSA nwljs tgka rd mudh nqdkuksa dh uhykeh dk izu gS] ftyk dyDVj dk izfrfuf/k uhykeh ds le; mifLFkr Fkk rhljs uxj ikfydk us muls lEiw.kZ jkf'k tek djk yh gS] rFkk pkSFks] jftLVªh dh Qhl Hkh muds }kjk stek djk nh xbZ gS vkSj ,lh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;fn mudh uhykeh fujLr dh tkrh gS rks ;g uk flQZ mfpr gksxk cfYd izfr vU;k; Hkh gksxkA 114- -i;k rhuksa layXu i=kofy;ka ns[kasA muds ns[kus ls ;g rks Li"V gS fd uhykeh ds nkSjku ftyk dyDVj ds izfrfuf/k ds :i eas Jh vxzoky vkbZ-,-,l- mifLFkr Fks] fdUrq ;g Hkh lR; gS fd bl ;kstuk dh ftyk dyDVj dh iwokZuqefr ugha yh xbZ vkSj blh vk/kkj ij uhykeh fujLr dh xbZ gSA 115- izkfFkZ;ksa ds izfronsu ij fopkj djus ls ;g ckr Li"V gS fd os bl uhykeh ds cksukQkbZM Øsrk gSa fd bl uhykeh dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k muds }kjk uxj ikfydk ds vkxzg ij tek djkbZ tk pqdh gS] mUgksaus LVkEi M;~Vh Hkh uxjikfydk ds dgus ls vnk dj nh gS vkSsjr eas;g U;k;kswj ,lh lwfpr gh gksxk fd muds izkFkZuk i= ij lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj fd;k tkosA ;gka ;g Hkh ys[k gS fd ;g IykV ,d Cykd gS ftldh ;kstd foHkkx }kjk ugha gksrh D;kstuk uxj fu;ksfd bldk {ks=Qy 1500 xt ls de gSA ,lh ;ksj uxjikfydk ds oxZstuk ftyk dyDVj ds Lrj ij vuqeksfnr gksrh gSA vkSa dk fu;eu fd;k tkuk gh U;k;ksZfgr esa bu rhuksa uhykfe;kas ds izdj.kksfpr gksxkA bl dk;okgh dks fujLr djus dk ifj.kke U;kf;d okn fookn gksxk ftlesa Hkh uxjikfydk dks fjyhQ dh lEHkkouk dh vis{kk dh gSA uxj fuxe t; ij us Hkh vius i= Øekad 11 fnukad 19-05-1993 esa ;gh izLrkfor fd;k gSA 116- fopkjkFkZ if"kr gSA g- ¼th-ds-xksLokeh½ funskd 28-12-1993 17. The Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India & Anr. vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors., (Supra), in Para 24, has held that even in contractual relations the Court cannot ignore that the public authority must have constitutional conscience so that any interpretation put up must be to avoid arbitrary action, lest the authority would be permitted to flourish as imperium in imperio. Whatever be the activity of the public authority, it must meet the test of Article 14 and judicial review strikes an arbitrary action. The other relevant Para No. 27 of the aforesaid Judgment is as follows:- “27. In the sphere of contractual relations the State, its instrumentality, public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element, action to public duty or obligation are enjoined to act in a manner i.e., fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options into consideration and in a manner that is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose for public good and in general public interest and it must not take any irrelevant or irrational factors into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. Duty to act fairly is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty or obligation must be informed by reason and guided by the public interest.“ 18. The Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (Supra), in Para 10 has held that every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. Para No. 10 of the aforesaid Judgment is as follows: - “10................. It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege.” 19. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege.” 19. A bare perusal of the Rules of 1974 referred herein above and relied by the parties would reveal that Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1974 regarding sanction of the scheme by the Chief Town Planner is with regard to residential land and not for commercial land. As regards approval of the Collector, the same is required in respect of stray plots. A bare perusal of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rules 24 of the Rules of 1974 would reveal that Rule 14 of the Rules of 1974 has been made applicable and there is no reference of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974 meant for allotment and sale of non-residential plots, therefore, Rule 24 of the Rules of 1974 relates to residential stray plots and non-residential plots, which include the allotment and sale of the land for commercial use and further sale of which will be governed by Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974. 20. Here in the case, the land was auctioned for commercial purpose, therefore, Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974, meant for allotment and sale of non-residential land, for which neither any prior approval of the Collector is necessary nor the sanction of the scheme by the Chief Town Planner, as mentioned in Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1974, would apply. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the respondents have taken contradictory stand with regard to measurement of the area of land, which was auctioned but in case the area of five questioned shops is clubbed, then it comes to about 264 Sq. Yds., which is less than 1500 Sq. Yds. At one point of time, they have considered the rights accrued to the petitioner as a bone fide purchaser and in their reply they have taken the stand of violation of Rules 8, 9 and 24 of the Rules of 1974, which are not applicable for the reason referred herein above. Yds., which is less than 1500 Sq. Yds. At one point of time, they have considered the rights accrued to the petitioner as a bone fide purchaser and in their reply they have taken the stand of violation of Rules 8, 9 and 24 of the Rules of 1974, which are not applicable for the reason referred herein above. Further the respondents being a Government and statutory authority, are expected to act in a reasonable, fair and proper manner but here in the instant case, the action of the respondents is not in accordance with the aforesaid well established principle of law of the Supreme Court enunciated in the case of LIC of India & Anr. vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre & Ors., (Supra), and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., (Supra). 21. In view of the above, the contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner deserve to be accepted and the contentions of the Counsel for the respondents deserve to be rejected. 22. In the wake of above, I am of the view that the order dated 04.01.1992 and further two consequential equidated orders 18.02.1992 are liable to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed and set-aside. 23. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take further action in accordance with the approval granted by the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Amber to the auction culminated in favour of the petitioner in respect of shop Nos. 12 and 13. Appropriate order in this regard be passed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 24. There shall be no order as to costs.