Judgement GOHIL, J. :- Appellants have filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 23-8-2006 passed in W.P. No. 1972/2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is contended in the petition that in the year 1995 there was an agreement between petitioner and the respondent No. 1 Mandi Board for providing Security Guards to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee situated in the State of M. P. and the same was extended from time to time and remained in force till September 2001. In the year 2002, the respondent Board issued directions vide letter dated 20-11-2002 to all the Secretaries of Mandhi Committee of the State that in case the Mandi Committees want to employ the Security Guards, they may employ the Security Guards from the petitioner agency. It was further mentioned in the letter that for that agreement has already been entered into between them on the basis of tender submitted and accepted by the Board and the proforma of the agreement was also forwarded to all the Mandi Committees along with the said letter. As per format of agreement, initially the agreement would be for a period of two years, which can extended by mutual consent upto three years on the rate accepted by the Board. Thereafter after the expiry of the period of three years some of the Mandi Committees, whose names have been mentioned in the Appeal, have further entered into agreement with the appellant agency, for the period upto 31-12-2008. In the meantime some complaint was made about the monopoly of the petitioner Company from 1995 and thereafter the Board directed to issue fresh NIT and accordingly fresh NIT was issued on 24-12-2005 for a fresh agreement for providing security to all Mandi Committees situated in the State of M. P. First notification was issued on 24-12-2005 vide Annexure P/6. Second amended NIT was again issued for inviting applications between 15-2-2006 to 1-3-2006 vide Annexure P/7. Then amended NIT was again issued as per Annexure P/8 for inviting tenders, which were to be submitted between 2-3-2006 to 31-3-2006 and on 31-3-2006 another amended NIT was issued vide Annexure P/9 and fresh tenders were invited between 1-4-2006 to 17-4-2006. 3. Second amended NIT was again issued for inviting applications between 15-2-2006 to 1-3-2006 vide Annexure P/7. Then amended NIT was again issued as per Annexure P/8 for inviting tenders, which were to be submitted between 2-3-2006 to 31-3-2006 and on 31-3-2006 another amended NIT was issued vide Annexure P/9 and fresh tenders were invited between 1-4-2006 to 17-4-2006. 3. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid Notice Inviting Tenders from Annexure P/6 to P/9 on the ground that since the petitioner has already entered into an agreement and the period of contract has been extended by some of the Mandi Committee upto 31-12-2008, on same terms and conditions. Therefore, Mandi Board cannot invite fresh tenders for all the Mandis and cannot frustrate the agreement already executed by Mandi as the Mandi Committee is a statutory body created under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 1972'). Uncer Section 7 of the Adhiniyam of 1972, it is a body corporated and competent to contract and to work to acheive the purpose of this Act. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition saying that in contractual matter the scope of interference is very limited and after the period of contract, the fresh NIT can be invited and dismissed the writ petition with cost, against which this writ appeal has been filed. 5. Shri M. P. S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that Mandi Committee being the independent statutory body at par with the local authority having power to enter into contract and Mandi Committee within its own power can extend the period of agreement. It was further submitted that around ten Mandi Committees have already extended the period of agreement upto 31-12-2008 and by issuing the fresh NIT the rights of the Mandi Committee to enter into the agreement cannot be curtailed and they are required to be protected and while exercising power of judicial review the Court can only consider the question of mala fides, arbitrariness and favouratism extended to any party and in this case no such allegations have been made against this party except that appellant is providing services for long time, which shows that appellant is providing services satisfactorily without complaint and also having experience. 6. 6. In reply Shri Jain submitted that Mandi Committees are working under the control of Board and not having independent power to act thereon. Under Section 25(A) of the Adhiniyam 1983, the Managing Director is having the power to sanction the budget of Mandi Committee. Section 46 provides about duties and functions of the Board, according to which the Board is having powers of supervision and control over the agriculture Market Committee. Under Section 54, the Managing Director may direct for inspection of markets and inquiry into affairs of market committee and under Section 55, the Managing Director may remove any member, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of market committee. Under Section 56 power of super-session of Market Committee has been provided. Therefore he further submitted that Market Committee or the Managing Director may issue necessary directions to the Mandi Committee about managing the affairs of the market committee. Initially and under the aforesaid powers the Board has taken decision to invite tenders for all the Committees and the Board has not given any direction to the Mandi Committees to renew the contract or further extended the period of contract. 7. Admittedly, the Mandi Committee is a legal independent statutory corporate body under the provisions of Section 7 of Adhiniyam of 1972, which reads as under:- 7. Establishment of Market Committee and its incorporation.- (1) For every market area, there shall be a Market Committee having jurisdiction over the entire market area. (2) Every Market Committee shall be a body corporate by the name specified in the notification under Section 4. It shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name and shall subject to such restrictions as are imposed by or under this Act, be competent to contract and to acquire, hold, lease, sell or otherwise transfer any property and to do all other things necessary for the purposes of this Act : Provided that no immovable property shall be acquired without the prior permission of the Managing Director in writing : Provided further that no immovable property shall be transferred by way of sale, lease or otherwise in a manner other than the matter prescribed in the rules made by the State Government for the purpose. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, every Market Committee shall, for all purposes, be deemed to by a local authority." Section 25 prescribes the mode of making contract by Mandi Committee. 8. We have perused one letter dated 26-11-2002 filed as Annexure R/1 by respondents, in which it was directed that Mandi Committee may employ security agency, name of security agency was recommended and the format was also forwarded but as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent the Board has not imposed any condition that the agreement should be made only with the particular agency. From this letter it is clear that it was obligatory on the part of Mandi Committee to enter into the agreement or not to enter into the agreement with that agency. But it was submitted by Shri Jain that under the garb of the aforesaid order the Mandi Committees have entered into the agreement on which the Board has objection. Mandi Committees have misread the extension clause. But as we have perused in the return it has been mentioned in para 4 that respondent No. 4 would itself determine the Security Agency after inviting the agency, and this reply is contrary to the letter dated 20-11-2002 as by the aforesaid letter Annexure R/1 it was made obligatory and as per reply the same is mandatory. 9. There is no doubt that the Mandi Committee is statutory independent legal authority, which can enter into the contract, but so far as the supervision and controlling powers of the Board are concerned under Section 46 they are in aid to the powers of the Market Committee and the power of each others are complementary and supplementary, can be used for the benefit of the Market Committee for managing its affairs efficiently. It would mean that Mandi Committee is having powers to enter into contract and the Board can also provide guidelines how to use these powers. If any market committee is not in a position to take any independent decision for the security of the market premises, certainly the Board can provide assistance and also issue directions and also can provide security but there is also no dispute that if any Mandi Committee wants to engage any independent agency independently, Mandi Committee can do it independently subject to the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1972. In this case since the appellant has already entered into the contract upto 31-12-2008 with some of the Mandi Committee of the State, therefore, it will not be proper at this stage to enter into that controversy whether the directions are mandatory or obligatory as it is also not the case of the respondent Board. Certainly, the Mandi Committee can independently engage any agency for the purposes of security but if they are not in a position to do that the Board can also provide assistance to them and fix the agency and direct them to consider the performance and to execute contract. As in this case some of the Mandi Committees have already executed agreement upto 31-12-2008 in favour of the appellant agency, therefore, at this stage, it would not be proper to interfere and to shut the right of Mandi Committees in the matter to enter into contract and to put any clock thereon. Thus, to that extent we observe and dispose of this appeal. In view of the aforesaid observation, question of cost is inconsequential. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly.