ORDER 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.3.2012 in W.P.No.6814/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent (petitioner in writ petition). 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed a petition for quashment of the order Annexure P/9 dated 14/8/2009 passed by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No.1 to cancel the allotment of shop No.13, which was in favour of the petitioner and also for quashment of the order Annexure P/10 which is the consequential order of Annexure P/9 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the allotment was cancelled. 3. Short facts of the case are that 28 shops were constructed by the respondent No.1 in a shopping complex namely MSG Complex at Manasa, which were auctioned. Petitioner also participated in the auction for shop No.13 and was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.3.26 lacs. Upon depositing the amount the allotment order and the possession was given to the petitioner. Thereafter some complaint was made to the respondent No.2 relating to eligibility of the petitioner to participate in auction. On that basis the order Annexure P/9 was issued by the respondent No.2 whereby it was directed that the allotment of the petitioner be cancelled and in consequence respondent No.1 cancelled the allotment vide order Annexure P/10. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders Annexue P/9 and Annexure P/10 are illegal, without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to sustain. It is submitted that the auction took place in the month of December, 2006, while the order Annexure P/9 has been passed on 14.8.2009 i.e. after more than two and half year. It is submitted that otherwise also the Collector was having no jurisdiction to issue any instructions to the respondent No.1 for performance of this job under M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. It is submitted that the order Annexure P/10 has been passed by the respondent No.1 keeping in view the provisions of section 98 of the Municipalities Act. It is submitted that the provisions are not applicable in the present case. It is submitted that the order Annexure P/10 has been passed by the respondent No.1 keeping in view the provisions of section 98 of the Municipalities Act. It is submitted that the provisions are not applicable in the present case. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders Annexure P/9 & P/10 be quashed. 5. The learned Single Judge having examined the provisions of section 98 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 held that the said provisions does not affect the purchase of the suit property in auction by the first respondent. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder :- “Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner was in employment of respondent No.1, therefore, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to participate in auction. It is submitted that since the participation itself was against the provisions of section 98 of Municipalities Act, therefore, the order Annexure P/10 has rightly been passed by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. Undisputedly the petitioner who is a lady was working as Teacher in a school, which was being run by the respondent No.1 at the relevant time. section 98 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as under: “98. Municipal Officer or servant not to be interested in any contract with Council.(1) No person shall be eligible for employment as a Municipal Officer or servant if he - (a) has, directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner any share or interest in any contract or employment with by, or on behalf of the Council, other than an interest in land held on a lease from the Council, or is a Director, Secretary, Manager or other salaried officer of an incorporated company which has any such share or interest; or (b) has acted or is acting professionally in relation to any matter on behalf of any person having therein any such share or interest as aforesaid. (2) If at any time subsequent to any appointment, it comes to the notice of the Council that any Municipal Officer or servant was not eligible for employment under sub-section(1) on the date of his appointment, the Council may, terminate his service: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed until reasonable opportunity has been given to the person concerned to furnish his explanation. (3) Nothing in the foregoing sub-section shall apply to any such share or interest as is specified in the explanation below section 35.” Bare perusal of sub-clause (a) of sub-section(1) of section 98 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 makes it clear that no person is eligible for employment as a Municipal Officer or servant if he has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner any share or interest in any contract or employment. In the present case petitioner is neither seeking contract nor employment, therefore, the provisions of section 98 of M.P. Municipalities Act itself are not attracted in the case. Petitioner has purchased the shop in open auction that too at the verge of her retirement. Otherwise also respondent No.2 is having no authority to direct the respondent No.1 to cancel the allotment order which was in favour of the petitioner. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the orders Annexure P/9 & P/10 stands quashed. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the first respondent being an employee of the School was not eligible to participate in the auction in the present case. 7. Having gone through the provisions of section 98 of the M.P. Municipalities Act as aforesaid, we find that the said provisions does not in any way prohibits an employee of the Corporation to participate in open auction. 7. Having gone through the provisions of section 98 of the M.P. Municipalities Act as aforesaid, we find that the said provisions does not in any way prohibits an employee of the Corporation to participate in open auction. At the most it prohibits employment by employee who has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner any share or interest in any contract or employment with by, or on behalf of the Council other than an interest in land held on a lease from the Council, in such a case, if at any time subsequent to any appointment, it comes to the notice of the Council that any Municipal Officer or servant was not eligible for employment under sub-section (1) on the date of his appointment, the Council may terminate his service subject to the proviso contained in sub-section(2) of the Act. 8. In the present case admittedly, the auction in which the first respondent participated was an open auction and as an auctioneer the first respondent had not obtained any wrongful gain for herself. She is no more in service of the Municipality. Even if the first respondent has committed misconduct, which would have liable the writ appellant to take any action against the said respondent, they may do so in accordance with law. 9. With these rider, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.