Judgment: Calling in question allocation of shops made by the MP Housing Board, Bhopal in Rivera Township near MACT Square, Bhopal petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondent No.1 Board, a creation of statute and established under the MP Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, constructed certain Township and Housing Project known as Rivera Township. Certain shops were also constructed in the Township and, therefore, a public notice was issued in the daily newspaper vide Annexure P/1, inviting offers for sale of 11 shops in the Township, from Shop Nos. 5 to 11. Petitioner herein in pursuance to this advertisement submitted his offer for the shops and it is the case of the petitioner that for Shop Nos. 4 to 9, the plinth area and other requirement was the same and the offset price was also fixed at Rs.20 Lacs for all these shops. Petitioner is said to have applied for these shops and when the tender was opened, it is his grievance that even though he had offered a sum of Rs.20,00,040/- for one of the shops, offers of all others were accepted but even though for one shop i.e.. Shop No.5, petitioner’s was the only offer but the same was rejected and re-auction was ordered. Accordingly, challenging the re-auction, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents are re-auctioning Shop No.5 on the ground that only one offer is received, whereas for Shop Nos. 8 and 9, only one offer of Shri Vipin Rai and Shri Anshil Rai was received, but as these offers have been accepted, it is stated that there is discrimination in as much as for Shop Nos. 8 and 9 single offers of Shri Vipin Rai and Shri Anshil Rai are accepted, there is no reason for not accepting the offer of the petitioner for Rs.20,00,040/-. 3. Respondents have filed their reply and they only state that as the offer of the petitioner was very low, it was only Rs.40/- above the offset price, the entire auction for Shop No.5 was cancelled, but with regard to shops allowed to Shri Vipin Rai and Shri Anshil Rai, it was stated that their offer was on the higher side and they have been accepted. 4. To verify as to what was the offer given by Shri Vipin Rai and Shri Anshil Rai, respondents were directed to file an affidavit. 4. To verify as to what was the offer given by Shri Vipin Rai and Shri Anshil Rai, respondents were directed to file an affidavit. The Estate Officer has filed a detailed affidavit today, which goes to show that for Shop No.5 petitioner had offered only Rs.40/- higher than the offset price; whereas for Shop No.9 Shri Anshil Rai had offered Rs.51,051/- above the offset price; and, for Shop No.8 Shri Vipin Rai had offered Rs.5,101/- more than the offset price. It is stated that the offers of both these persons were reasonable looking to the nature of the shops, its direction and various other aspects, therefore their offers were accepted and petitioner’s offer for Shop No.5 being only Rs.40/- above the offset price, the entire process for Shop No. 5 alongwith Shop Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7, were directed to be re-auctioned, as for the other four shops no offers were received. 5. Keeping in view the reasons given by the respondents, it is clear that it is a case where the respondents exercised their discretion and finding the offer given by the petitioner for Shop No.5 to be very much on the lower side, have decided to re-auction the shop. This decision of the respondents is an executive and administrative decision and until and unless it is shown to be violated on account of statutory provisions or rules being breached, interference by this Court is not called for. 6. However, petitioner has tried to make out a case of discrimination. If the case of the petitioner is to be accepted, then the allotment of Shop Nos. 8 and 9 to the persons namely -Shri Vipin Rai and Shri Anshil Rai, is also required to be quashed. The petitioner has neither prayed for quashing the acceptance of their offer nor has he impleaded these persons as parties. That being so, this Court cannot interfere into the matter and quash the allotment made to these persons. 7. That apart, for one of the shops, i.e. Shop No.9, the offer of one of the persons was Rs.51,051/- above the offset price, and the detailed affidavit of the respondents goes to show that in the said case the Committee accepted the offer as being reasonable. As far as the other shop is concerned i.e.. 7. That apart, for one of the shops, i.e. Shop No.9, the offer of one of the persons was Rs.51,051/- above the offset price, and the detailed affidavit of the respondents goes to show that in the said case the Committee accepted the offer as being reasonable. As far as the other shop is concerned i.e.. Shop No.8, even though the price received is only Rs.5,101/- above the offset price, but in the absence of any challenge being made to that allotment and the allotted person not being a party in these proceedings, no case is made out for cancellation of the allotment with regard to the said shop. 8. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, for the reasons as are indicated hereinabove, we see no ground to interfere into the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed.