Judgment :- Common Order: The A.P. Housing Board, the 1st respondent herein, issued notice of public auction, proposing to sell plot Nos.79, 80, 81 and 82, in Phase-IX of Kukatpally Housing Board Colony. The auction was to be held on 25.10.2002. The petitioner quoted Rs.6,650/- per sq.yard, for plot No.82, and he emerged as highest bidder. In addition to EMD of Rs.1,00,000/-, he paid 1/4th of the cost of the plot, on the next day. The balance 3/4th of the amount, required to be deposited, in 30 days, i.e. on or before 25.11.2002. The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Western Division, the 2nd respondent herein, issued another notice of auction, dated 16.11.2002, proposing to sell open plots in Phase-IX, being Plot Nos.77, 78, 78/A and 83. Out of these plots, plot No.83, on the eastern side, and plot No.78/A on the rear side (northern side) of plot No.82, are triangular in shape. The petitioner filed W.P.No.23578 of 2002, challenging the action of the respondents, in proposing to sell plot Nos.78/A and 83. On the ground that the petitioner did not pay the balance of 3/4th consideration for plot No.82; through their proceedings dated 25.8.2005, the respondents cancelled the auction of plot No.82, in favour of the petitioner. The same is challenged in W.P.No.25966 of 2005. The petitioner contends that when the auction was held on 25.10.2002, plot No.82 was shown as abutting road, on three sides, and that prompted him to quote Rs.6,650/- per sq.yard, though, for the neighbouring plots, the rate was far below. According to him, plot Nos.78/A and 83 were carved out of the open area, at road junction. It is also the contention of the petitioner that there is absolutely no justification for the respondents, in canceling the auction, even while a writ petition in relation to the controversy is pending before this court. On behalf of respondents, two separate counter affidavits are filed in the writ petitions. They denied the allegation of the petitioner that plots No.82 was at the corner and that plot Nos.78/A and 83 were carved out, later. It is urged that mere pendency of W.P.No.23578 of 2002 was no basis for the petitioner, to avoid payment of the 3/4th of the consideration. They denied the allegation of the petitioner that plots No.82 was at the corner and that plot Nos.78/A and 83 were carved out, later. It is urged that mere pendency of W.P.No.23578 of 2002 was no basis for the petitioner, to avoid payment of the 3/4th of the consideration. Sri B. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very alignment of plot Nos.78/A and 83, at the time of their auction, discloses that they are carved out later. He submits that there were no bonafides, on the part of the respondents, in conducting the auction of different plots, abutting each other, in such a short interval, and the purpose was only to mislead the participants. It is also his contention that the interim order granted by this court in W.P.No.23578 of 2002 was in force, from November 2002 onwards, and the respondents themselves were convinced that in view of the pendency of that writ petition, no further steps could be taken. He submits that having waited for three years, the respondents have chosen to cancel the result of auction for plot No.82, in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the writ petitions cannot be maintained, to enforce or to adjudicate upon the two contractual obligations. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD v. G.S.INVESTMENTS (2007) 1 SCC 477 ), he submits that even if there exist any defects, or inconsistency in the process, the proceedings of the respondents cannot be interdicted. Learned counsel points out that once the area of the plot, for which the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, is clearly stipulated and the same is kept in tact, he cannot have any grievance for sale of the land belonging to the respondents, in the neighbourhood of that plot. In view of the pleadings in the writ petitions and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, two issues arise for consideration, viz; 1) Whether the respondents are entitled to sell plot Nos.78/A and 83 of Phase-IX of Kukatpally Housing Board Colony? 2) Whether the proceedings, dated 25.8.2005, canceling the auction in favour of the petitioner, can be sustained in law? 2) Whether the proceedings, dated 25.8.2005, canceling the auction in favour of the petitioner, can be sustained in law? Before discussing the issues framed above, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents, as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, needs to be dealt with. It is urged that the scope of interference, or exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in contractual matters, is very limited, and any decision taken in larger public interest, does not warrant interference. In this regard, it needs to be observed that a clear distinction has to be maintained between the matters, which involve the pre-contract and post-contract stages. In the second category of cases, the parties are required to work out their remedies, in accordance with the terms of the contract, by approaching the concerned forum. That again is mostly a matter of convenience, than absence of jurisdiction of the High Court. In the first category of cases, judicial review is permissible to verify the decision-making process, leading to the contract. There again, the court would not sit as an appellate authority, but endeavour to satisfy itself, whether the process was reasonable, and not arbitrary. In Rajasthan Housing Board’s case (supra), relied upon by the respondents, the State Government cancelled the entire auction conducted by the Housing Board, on noticing certain defects. In the proceedings initiated by the successful bidders, in the auction so cancelled, the Supreme Court held that when a larger public interest is involved and it was noticed that price fetched in the auction for the plots was much below the market value, no exception can be taken to the decision of the government. Such is not the case, where the auction as such is intact. The controversy is only as to whether there was any justification for the respondents, in canceling the acceptance of the offer of the petitioner. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents, in this regard, cannot be accepted. Coming to the first issue, a reading of the first auction notice discloses that the respondents intended to conduct auction on 25.10.2002, to sell several plots in IV and IX Phases. In Phases IV and IX, five plots each were put to auction. Though the plots in each phase were contiguous to one another, the price fetched for them varied, depending on their location. In Phases IV and IX, five plots each were put to auction. Though the plots in each phase were contiguous to one another, the price fetched for them varied, depending on their location. In phase-IX, plot No.82 was in the corner of a road junction. The alignment of the two roads, on the side of the plot, was 45 degrees. Naturally, there remained triangular piece of land, by the side of plot No.82, as well as behind it. It is true that the area of plot No.82 was shown as 266.66 sq.yards. Obviously, because of its location, the petitioner offered Rs.6,650/- per sq.yard, whereas, the other three plots, viz; 78, 80 and 81 fetched Rs.4,800/-, 4,550/- and 5,600/- respectively. The price offered by the petitioner was the highest of all the 10 plots, in two phases. Apart from depositing the EMD, the petitioner had deposited 1/4th of the amount, on the next day of the auction. The respondents came forward with another auction notice dated 16.11.2002, proposing to sell plot Nos.77, 78, 78/A and 83. When open plots in different phases were auctioned together, the reason for conducting separate auction, by issuing a separate notification, for the plots in Phase-IX adjoining those, which were put to auction on 25.10.2002, is not clearly forthcoming. Whatever be the justification for deferring the auction of plot Nos.77 and 78, the examination of dimensions of plot Nos.78/A and 83, adds strength to the contention of the petitioner that the respondents carved out those two plots, at a subsequent stage. The two plots are triangular in shape, and one of them is so narrow and with a sharp angle, that it cannot be put to any effective use. Further, any construction made on plot No.83 would block the free flow of the traffic. The very numbering of the plots, clearly discloses that the respondents carved out these two triangular plots, at a subsequent stage, and they have misled the participants of the auction held on 25.10.2002. This was not expected of an instrumentality of the State, which is supposed to be a model agency. Notwithstanding the serious doubts that exist, as to the circumstances, under which plot Nos.78/A and 83 were carved out, the sale of those two plots cannot be held to be illegal. If the respondents had contravened provisions of any enactment or byelaw, totally different things would have ensued. Notwithstanding the serious doubts that exist, as to the circumstances, under which plot Nos.78/A and 83 were carved out, the sale of those two plots cannot be held to be illegal. If the respondents had contravened provisions of any enactment or byelaw, totally different things would have ensued. As long as the petitioner was ensured a particular plot with its notified extent, he cannot have any valuable right, to prevent the sale of the land around it. If the respondents possess valid title to the land and right to sell it, the inconvenience caused to the petitioner would be of no consequence. Therefore, the first issue is answered against the petitioner, and in favour of the respondents. Now remains the second issue. The respondents cancelled allotment and auction in favour of the petitioner, almost three years after the alleged default had emerged. The petitioner never shirked his liability to pay the balance of sale consideration. He exhibited his bonafides, by paying 1/4th of the consideration, on the next day of the auction. Before the time for payment of the balance of the consideration expired, the respondents came forward with a proposal, to sell two plots in the neighbourhood of the petitioner, which naturally affected the utility and importance of that plot. This court has not only entertained the writ petition filed by the petitioner, but also granted interim order. The respondents themselves were convinced that failure of the petitioner to deposit the balance 3/4th of the consideration, within 30 days from the date of auction, couldn’t entail cancellation, in view of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order granted therein. The fact that they have waited almost three years, in this regard, points to the same. Without even intimating the petitioner about the alleged lapse on his part, the respondents have chosen to straight away cancel the auction in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner did not seek stay of cancellation, obviously because there was no threat to him. When a serious step of cancellation of the auction and forfeiture of the amount paid by the petitioner was being resorted to, the respondents were expected to put the petitioner on notice. The essence and sanctity of the outer limit of 30 days became insignificant, once the respondents themselves have waited for three years. Therefore, the proceedings dated 25.8.2005, cannot be sustained. The essence and sanctity of the outer limit of 30 days became insignificant, once the respondents themselves have waited for three years. Therefore, the proceedings dated 25.8.2005, cannot be sustained. However, the petitioner would be under obligation to pay the balance of consideration, with interest at 12% per annum from 26.11.2002. Hence, I) W.P.No.23578 of 2002 is dismissed. II) a) W.P.No.25966 of 2005 is allowed, and the proceedings dated 25.8.2005 are set aside. b) The respondents shall execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner, in case the balance of the sale consideration for Plot No.82 of Phase-IX of Kukatpally Housing Board Colony is deposited within six (6) weeks from today, with interest at 12% per annum, from 26.11.2002 onwards. c) There shall be no order as to costs.