ORDER : The communication dated 15.9.2016 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 is challenged in these petitions besides seeking for a direction to the respondent/authorities to execute lease-cum-sale agreement of the site Nos. 45 and 15 respectively, situated in the market yard of the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are carrying on the business in the market yard. The respondent No.2 after obtaining approval from the respondent No.1 allotted the sites to the petitioners and others. The petitioners paid balance amount with interest at 12% per annum to the respondent No.2 and requested the respondents/authorities to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement. Despite the repeated requests made by the petitioners to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement of the site which was allotted to the petitioners, no action was taken and finally the market committee/respondent No.2 passed a resolution as per Annexure-E to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement after obtaining the approval from the competent authority. On the submission of the said resolution before the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 rejected the resolution to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement with respect to the allotted site in favour of the petitioners since the said resolution is contrary to Rule 10 of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market yards) Rules 2004 [‘Rules’, for short] as the petitioners had deposited the amount beyond the prescribed limit of time. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing the order passed by the respondent No.1 would contend that the petitioners have already paid the entire amount and registration charges along with interest to the respondent No.2. In similar circumstances, this Court has held that the balance amount has to be paid with interest at 10% per annum to the Committee. This aspect was also not considered by the respondent No.1, albeit the entire amount was paid by the petitioners. No opportunity was provided to the petitioners before issuing the impugned communication. Hence, the communication of the respondent No.1 is hit by the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted by the respondents/authorities are against the allotment rules. 4. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘SRI DHANESHWARI TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS vs. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKET DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER’ in Writ Appeal Nos.5026-250265/2013 [DD14.8.2013]. 5. The procedure adopted by the respondents/authorities are against the allotment rules. 4. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘SRI DHANESHWARI TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS vs. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKET DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER’ in Writ Appeal Nos.5026-250265/2013 [DD14.8.2013]. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader Smt. M. Geetha, appearing for the respondent No.1 supporting the impugned communication would contend that the petitioners have paid the amount towards the allotted site belatedly contrary to Rule-10 of the Rules. As such, the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 was not approved by the respondent No.1 and the same cannot be found fault with. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 supports the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-E and contends that the petitioners have paid the amount belatedly and after 60 days of the prescribed time limit as provided under Rule-10 of the Rules. Considering the same, in the light of the identical cases wherein this Court has extended period for making payment, by paying interest at 10% per annum, the resolution was passed to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement after getting approval from the respondent No.1 i.e., competent authority. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it emerges that the petitioners were allotted sites in pursuance to the Notification issued by the respondent No.2 for allotment of site on 19.6.2015. The petitioners have not paid the balance amount in pursuance of the allotment. Hence, a notice was issued by the respondent No.2 on 9.10.2015 to make the arrears towards the allotment of site. The respondent No.2 passed a resolution at Annexure-E resolving to execute the lease cum sale agreement as the entire amount was paid by the petitioner though belatedly with interest, after obtaining approval of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has rejected the proposal of the respondent No.2 since the payment of the amount was made by the petitioners belatedly. This very issue was the subject matter before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. The respondent No.1 has rejected the proposal of the respondent No.2 since the payment of the amount was made by the petitioners belatedly. This very issue was the subject matter before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. DHANESHWARI TRADING COMPANY[supra], this Court after considering the case of the petitioners wherein, no full amount was paid towards the sites allotted, extended the time directing the petitioners therein to pay the balance of sital value within the period of three months with interest at 10% per annum on the balance sital value for the delayed period. 8. But, in the present case, the entire amount having been paid belatedly after 60 days of the time prescribed under Rule-10 of the Rules with interest at 12% per annum, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to approve the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-E in terms of the Judgment of the Division Bench cited supra. Accordingly, the order dated 15.9.2016 at Annexure-G passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside with the direction to the respondent No.1 to approve the resolution at Annexure-E as aforesaid. Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.