ORDER : Leave granted. 1. This appeal arises out of an Order dated 18th March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the High Court has recalled an earlier order dated 20.10.2010 passed by it in Writ Petition © No. 26545 of 2008 and disposed off the matter with the direction that the writ-petitioner can, if so advised, seek redress by way of an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority. The controversy arises in the following circumstances: 2. A large extent of vacant land admeasuring nearly 17000 sq. metrs situate within the corporation limits of the city of Kanpur, U.P. was offered for sale on free hold basis in terms of an auction notice dated 30th March, 2006. The notice stipulated a reserve price of Rs. 15.47 crores for the property. In response to the notice, three bids appear to have been received by the Corporation including one made by the appellant herein who offered an amount of Rs. 21.51 crores which happened to be the highest bid for the property in question. The appellant also deposited, as required by the tender notice, earnest money of Rs. 2.50 crores representing just about 10% of the amount offered by him. Since the Corporation did not process the matter further, for the conversion of the property into free hold and execution of a conveyance deed in favour of the appellant, the appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 25308 of 2007 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which petition was disposed off by a Division Bench of that Court by a brief order which read as under: “This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that in spite of the fact that there has been resolution of the competent authority in favour of the petitioner, and petitioner has deposited the required amount, but the sale deed is not being executed in his favour. Shri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that grievance of the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken by the respondent No. 2, strictly in accordance with law, also taking into consideration the resolution dated 27.04.2007. We order accordingly. The petition, thus stands disposed of finally.” 3. Shri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that grievance of the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken by the respondent No. 2, strictly in accordance with law, also taking into consideration the resolution dated 27.04.2007. We order accordingly. The petition, thus stands disposed of finally.” 3. In obedience to the above direction of the High Court, the Corporation appears to have passed an Order dated 09.04.2008 by which it cancelled the entire tender process on the basis of a recommendation made by the Executive Committee of the Corporation in whose opinion the amount offered by the appellant was very low in comparison to the true market value of the property. The bid offered by the appellant was on that basis rejected and the amount of earnest money directed to be refunded to it. 4. Dissatisfied with the view taken by the Corporation rejecting the bid offered by the appellant, the appellant approached the High Court for a second time in Writ Petition No. 26545 of 2008 which petition was then heard and disposed off by another Division Bench of the High Court in terms of yet another brief order which reads as under: “Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, the Municipal Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar is directed to comply the government Order dated 03.09.2007 within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order ignoring the order dated 09.04.2008. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally.” 5. An application was then moved by the Corporation for recall of the afore-mentioned Order dated 20.10.2010. The application asserted that the order passed by the Court was ex-parte inasmuch counsel for the Corporation had because of some inadvertence failed to appear to argue the matter when the same was called for hearing. The High Court has by its Order dated 18.03.2011 impugned in the present appeal allowed the said application, recalled the Order dated 20.10.2010 and disposed off the matter with a direction that the appellant shall be free to seek redress by way of an appeal before the competent authority. The High Court has further directed that the appeal so filed, shall be decided on merits within one month. The present appeal assail the correctness of the said order as already noticed. 6. The High Court has further directed that the appeal so filed, shall be decided on merits within one month. The present appeal assail the correctness of the said order as already noticed. 6. We have heard M/s. Ashok Desai and Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant who have taken us through the orders passed by the High Court as also other documents placed on record. The material facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the property being offered for sale is a large and valuable piece of land measuring 17000 sq. mtrs. situate within the municipal corporation limits of Kanpur. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was one of the three bidders who had offered their bids for the said property. It is also common ground that the appellant's bid at Rs. 21.57 crores was the highest bid received by the Corporation. Even so, the Corporation had by a Resolution dated 21.07.2007 taken a decision to cancel the tender process as in the opinion of the Executive Committee of the Corporation, the amount offered by the highest bidder was below the market value of the property. Mr. Desai strenuously argued that the reserve price for the property in question having been fixed on the basis of the circle rates prevalent in the city of Kanpur during the relevant period, the Corporation ought to have accepted the appellant's bid especially so because the amount so offered was higher than the reserve price paid for the property. Inasmuch the Corporation had resolved to reject the bid offered by the appellant and cancelled the tender process, it had acted unfairly. We however see no merit in that contention. The property offered by the Corporation for sale by auction is admittedly public property in the hands of the Corporation as trustee who is not only entitled but duty bound to protect its interest by making sure that the same is sold at the optimum price which the said property is capable of fetching in the open market. The fact that the Corporation has determined the reserve price at Rs. 15.47 crores based on circle rates is in our opinion not a true measure to determine the actual market value of the property. The fact that the Corporation has determined the reserve price at Rs. 15.47 crores based on circle rates is in our opinion not a true measure to determine the actual market value of the property. The fixation of the reserved price also does not necessarily imply that the public authority inviting offers would sell the property at the price so fixed or at a price even higher than the same unless it is also satisfied that the price so offered truly represents the market value of the property. In that view, therefore the decision of the Corporation to reject the offer made by the appellant and to return the earnest money deposited by it and to cancel the entire tender process cannot be said to be so arbitrary or unreasonable as to warrant interference by a writ court. At any rate, the High Court had at no stage found the said resolution of the Corporation to be either irregular or unreasonable. Interestingly the High Court had while disposing of Writ Petition No. 26545 of 2008 by its Order dated 20.10.2010 simply directed the Corporation to comply with Government Order dated 03.09.2007 while ignoring communication dated 09.04.2008 issued by the Corporation. We fail to understand how the High Court could possibly issue such a direction without going into the validity of the Resolution dated 21.07.2007 that led to issue of letter dated 09.04.2008 and finding the same to be illegal on any acceptable juristic basis. The Order passed by the High Court is, in our opinion, not only cryptic but wholly unsatisfactory in the sense that it does not disclose due and proper application of mind on the part of the Court to the questions that fell for determination and yet issued a direction which had effect of nullifying a resolution and order validly passed by the Corporation. 7. We had during the pendency of these proceedings directed learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation to file an affidavit whether or not the Corporation was interested in selling the property as it was submitted by Mr. Pradeep Mishra learned counsel for the Corporation that according to his instructions the Corporation had resolved not to go for sale of the property so that the same could be used for construction of residential accommodation for use by the Corporation staff. Pradeep Mishra learned counsel for the Corporation that according to his instructions the Corporation had resolved not to go for sale of the property so that the same could be used for construction of residential accommodation for use by the Corporation staff. An additional affidavit was accordingly filed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Property) Nagar Nigam, Kanpur on 08.10.2014 inter alia stating that the Corporation has decided not to use the property for its office or residence but to sell the same with a view to augmenting its resources. What is important is that in the affidavit, the Corporation has claimed that the current market value of the land in question is not less than Rs. 74,60,10,000/-as per the circle rates prescribed in the land situate in that area. This clearly signifies that even according to the circle rates which are generally lower than the true market value of the property being sold or purchased the property was worth Rs. 74.60 crores as in October, 2014. Such being the position, we really see no reason why such a valuable piece of property should be directed to be handed over to the appellant at ¼th of its market value which market value today may be more than Rs. 100 crores. 8. In the totality of above circumstances, we find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the High Court especially when it is common ground that no appellate remedy is even otherwise available in law against the decision of that Corporation. 9. That brings us to the question whether the amount deposited by the appellant by way of earnest money can and ought to be refunded with interest as the amount has remained in deposit with the Corporation since 2006. We must to the credit of Mr. Mishra say that he was not averse to this Court directing refund of the amount representing the earnest money of the appellant with interest at such rates as the Court may determine. Given the bank rate of interest earned on savings and term deposits during the relevant period interest @ 8% should in our opinion suffice. Mishra say that he was not averse to this Court directing refund of the amount representing the earnest money of the appellant with interest at such rates as the Court may determine. Given the bank rate of interest earned on savings and term deposits during the relevant period interest @ 8% should in our opinion suffice. We accordingly dismiss Writ Petition No. 26545 of 2008 filed by the petitioner and in modification of the Order passed by the High Court direct that the amount of earnest money deposited with the respondent-Corporation shall be refunded to the appellant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date the amount was deposited till the date the same is actually refunded. The refund shall be made within two months from today. No costs.