JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. The respective counsel waive notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Collector in proceedings under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, ''the said Act'') whereby resolution dated 24.08.2009 passed by the respondent no.1-Municipal Council has been suspended. Further challenge has also been raised by amending the writ petition to the communication dated 20.10.2018 issued by the State Government directing the Municipal Council to re-assess the market value and take fresh steps in the matter of allotting the land in question on lease with a view to ensure higher revenue being received by the Municipal Council. 3. The facts relevant for adjudicating the challenges as raised are that plot no.67 admeasuring about 895 square feet which is owned by the Municipal Council is the subject matter of dispute. On 18.06.2005, the General Body of the Municipal Council passed a resolution so as to auction plot no.67 to let it out on lease. On that basis after issuing public notices, auction was held on 17.08.2009 in which upset price of 1,20,553/- was fixed. The Municipal Council received four bids and the highest bid for Rs.1,26,000/- was of the petitioner. After accepting that bid, the Municipal Council on 24.08.2009 passed a resolution and resolved to obtain the consent of the State Government for leasing out the property for a period of thirty years. This resolution dated 24.08.2009 was the subject matter of challenge in proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act at the instance of one Afsar Ali-brother of the respondent no.2 herein. The ground of challenge as raised was that since the applicant''s brother namely Muzaffar Ali, the respondent no.2 herein, was physically handicapped and he had a right of preference to be allotted the said plot on lease, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was bad in law. On 09.05.2011, the Collector passed an order and observed that since the appellant therein was seeking personal benefit by invoking provisions of Section 308 of the said Act and there was absence of any public interest involved, the application was not liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the application came to be dismissed. On 09.05.2011, the Collector passed an order and observed that since the appellant therein was seeking personal benefit by invoking provisions of Section 308 of the said Act and there was absence of any public interest involved, the application was not liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the application came to be dismissed. Thereafter the respondent no.2 herein approached this Court in February-2013 by filing Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013. In the said writ petition, a declaration was sought that the allotment of the plot in question was in violation of provisions of Section 92 of the said Act and it was thus prayed that the said plot be allotted to the respondent no.2. The Division Bench on 12.03.2013 observed that an alternate remedy was available for the petitioner therein to invoke. Hence by granting that liberty to have recourse to the alternate remedy available, the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter in September-2013, the respondent no.2 filed proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act and challenged the resolution dated 24.08.2009 that was passed by the Municipal Council. The petitioner filed his reply to the aforesaid application. By the order dated 17.02.2016, the Collector was pleased to allow the said application filed under Section 308 of the said Act by observing that allotment of the plot in question would result in creating an obstruction in the development of a proposed project and secondly that there was no permission of the State Government to grant a permanent lease for a period of thirty years. Accordingly, resolution dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Municipal Council came to be set aside. The petitioner has thus challenged the aforesaid order by filing the present writ petition on 15.06.2016. During pendency of the writ petition on 31.05.2018, the State Government issued a communication to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council while considering the proposal forwarded by the Municipal Council seeking its sanction. An enquiry was made as to whether the petitioner who was the successful allottee was ready to abide by the terms and conditions that were required to be followed in view of Rules 10 to 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1983. In response thereto on 25.06.2018, the Chief Officer informed the State Government that the petitioner had issued a letter dated 20.06.2018 and had agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions. In response thereto on 25.06.2018, the Chief Officer informed the State Government that the petitioner had issued a letter dated 20.06.2018 and had agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions. Thereafter on 20.10.2018, the State Government informed the Municipal Council that as a period of nine years had elapsed since the passing of the resolution on 24.08.2009 and there was a possibility of the Municipal Council receiving higher revenue as per the present market rate, it should take steps to obtain a fresh valuation of the land and thereafter by way of public auction, the plot should be leased out. By amending the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged this communication/direction issued by the State Government. 4. Shri V.P. Panpalia, learned counsel while challenging the order dated 17.02.2016 that was passed by the Collector under Section 308 of the said Act submitted that in view of the fact that an earlier challenge to the same resolution dated 24.08.2009 had been rejected by the Collector on 09.05.2011, there was no occasion for the Collector to have passed the impugned order which had the effect of reviewing the earlier order passed. This objection was specifically raised by the petitioner before the Collector but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the requirements of the provisions of Section 308 of the said Act were not satisfied inasmuch as the respondent no.2 was seeking the said plot for his own purpose on the ground that he was physically handicapped. In absence of the ingredients of Section 308 being satisfied and there being nothing on record to indicate that such resolution was against public interest, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. According to him, since the earlier resolution dated 18.06.2005 for leasing out the said plot was holding the field, the communication dated 28.02.2008 was not liable to be relied upon by the Collector. He also referred to the reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Council in which it was stated that resolution dated 24.08.2009 continued to operate and the same was not set aside. Similar stand was taken before the Collector and therefore the impugned order as passed was liable to be set aside. He referred to the decision in Writ Petition No.6959 of 2015 [Sarda Education Society Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati] to substantiate his aforesaid contention. Similar stand was taken before the Collector and therefore the impugned order as passed was liable to be set aside. He referred to the decision in Writ Petition No.6959 of 2015 [Sarda Education Society Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati] to substantiate his aforesaid contention. As regards the subsequent direction issued on 20.10.2018 it was submitted that the proposal for grant of sanction was pending with the State Government and pursuant to the query made by the State Government, the petitioner had communicated his willingness to abide by all the terms and conditions that were required to be complied with for having the property taken on lease. Despite communication of this aspect to the State Government, it was directed that a fresh auction be held. The petitioner was not responsible in any manner whatsoever in delaying the proceedings and he could not be blamed for the passage of time. It was the respondent no.2 who had sought to challenge the resolution in question and the petitioner having been held entitled to have the land on lease, he could not be put at a disadvantage. Moreover, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 09.03.2006 and Rs.86,000/- on 14.03.2012 towards the lease amount with the Municipal Council. The entire lease amount therefore stood deposited since the year 2012. Since this direction was uncalled for, it was submitted that the same was liable to be set aside. 5. Shri M.P. Kariya, learned counsel for the respondent no.1- Municipal Council did not dispute the fact that the Municipal Council stood by its resolution dated 24.08.2009 leasing out the plot to the petitioner. He however submitted that in view of the direction dated 20.10.2018 issued by the State Government for conducting a fresh auction, the same would amount to rejection of the approval that was sought by the Municipal Council. Shri A.M. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 supported the impugned orders. According to him, Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013 had been filed by the said respondent wherein liberty was granted to avail the alternate remedy. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 had filed proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act. As the respondent no.2 was a physically handicapped person he was entitled to be leased out the said plot in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24.06.2001. This aspect was rightly noted by the Collector while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 had filed proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act. As the respondent no.2 was a physically handicapped person he was entitled to be leased out the said plot in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24.06.2001. This aspect was rightly noted by the Collector while passing the impugned order. He also referred to the communication dated 28.02.2008 in which the Chief Officer had stated that the aforesaid plot was proposed for some other use. The learned counsel further submitted that when the letter dated 06.02.2015 was issued by the Municipal Council seeking approval of the State Government for leasing out the property, the proceedings filed by the respondent nos.2 were pending. He also referred to the provisions of Section 92 of the said Act and submitted that the resolution dated 24.08.2009 was not in consonance thereof. Further after cancellation of this resolution, a fresh process was rightly directed to be followed. Hence, no interference was therefore called for in the present writ petition. Shri V.A. Thakare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submitted that the directions issued on 20.10.2018 were rightly issued after considering the fact that the period of almost nine years had elapsed since the earlier resolution dated 24.08.2009 had been passed. Since the further process in favour of the petitioner was not yet completed, the State Government rightly refused to approve the further course as per resolution dated 24.08.2009. The said direction was issued in larger public interest and it did not warrant any interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have given due consideration to their respective submissions. Considering the challenge as raised to the order dated 17.02.2016 passed under Section 308 of the said Act, it is to be noted that after resolution dated 24.08.2009 came to be passed, the brother of the respondent no.2 had filed proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act. In those proceedings, a specific ground had been raised that the brother of the said applicant (the respondent no.2 herein) was physically handicapped and had first right and preference to be leased out the said plot. This ground of challenge at Serial Number 8 in the application filed under Section 308 of the said Act has been considered by the Collector while passing the order dated 09.05.2011. This ground of challenge at Serial Number 8 in the application filed under Section 308 of the said Act has been considered by the Collector while passing the order dated 09.05.2011. It was observed that since the applicant was pursuing his own interest by invoking the provisions of Section 308 of the said Act, the same was not permissible. On that count, the said application came to be rejected. This order has attained finality as it was not challenged any further. The respondent no.2 had thereafter filed Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013 in which it was prayed that the plot in question be allotted to him as he was physically handicapped. This Court on 12.03.2013 granted liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternate remedy. It is thereafter that the respondent no.2 filed proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act. In those proceedings, the respondent no.2 again stated that he being a handicapped applicant, the land in question ought to have been allotted to him. In the reply filed by the petitioner, it was specifically stated that the brother of the respondent no.2 had already filed similar proceedings which had been rejected. The Municipal Council also opposed the aforesaid proceedings. However, without considering the earlier orders passed under Section 308 of the said Act, the application came to be allowed. 7. The order dated 17.02.2016 is liable to be set aside on two counts. Firstly, an earlier challenge on similar grounds to the resolution dated 24.08.2009 was raised by the brother of the respondent no.2. That challenge having been entertained and thereafter adjudicated, it was not permissible for the respondent no.2 to have again re-agitated the same issues that had attained finality. The respondent no.2 seeks to rely upon the liberty granted to him in Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013. The liberty as granted was to avail the alternate remedy available. Grant of such liberty would not mean that the finality attained by the earlier adjudication would have to be ignored. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein was not noticed when the earlier order in Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013 came to be passed. Hence, such challenge cannot be permitted to be raised again. This aspect despite being raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the Collector. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein was not noticed when the earlier order in Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013 came to be passed. Hence, such challenge cannot be permitted to be raised again. This aspect despite being raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the Collector. Secondly, the power to suspend a resolution of the Municipal Council under Section 308 of the said Act is required to be exercised only if the resolution in question was causing or likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or is found to be against public interest or is likely to lead to breach of peace or is unlawful. In the present case except for stating that the respondent no.2 was entitled to have the said plot allotted to him as he was physically handicapped, there is no other reason put forth in challenge. There is no element of public interest shown against the said resolution. The communication dated 28.02.2008 referred to by the Collector also has to be viewed in the context of the earlier resolution dated 18.06.2005 by which the Municipal Council had resolved to auction the plot in question. As that resolution continued to operate, it was not open for the Chief Officer merely to opine that the plot was required for some other purpose. Hence, both the grounds on which the Collector proceeded to set aside the resolution dated 24.08.2009 are found to be untenable in law. The Collector thus erred in passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2016 and setting aside the resolution dated 24.08.2009. On these counts, the order dated 17.02.2016 is liable to be set aside. 8. Considering the subsequent direction issued by the State Government on 20.10.2018, it is seen that the State Government was of the view that a period of almost nine years had elapsed since the resolution dated 24.08.2009 had been passed. With passage of time, higher revenue could be received by the Municipal Council if it again auctioned the plot in question. The said direction has to be viewed in the light of the earlier developments. The initial resolution of seeking to auction the plot in question is dated 18.06.2005. The bid submitted by the petitioner came to be accepted on 17.08.2009 after which on 24.08.2009 the Municipal Council passed the resolution to lease out the said land by public auction. The said direction has to be viewed in the light of the earlier developments. The initial resolution of seeking to auction the plot in question is dated 18.06.2005. The bid submitted by the petitioner came to be accepted on 17.08.2009 after which on 24.08.2009 the Municipal Council passed the resolution to lease out the said land by public auction. It is not in dispute that in the interregnum, the Municipal Council had moved the State Government to obtain its sanction for leasing out the said plot to the petitioner. The State Government on 31.05.2018 had sought the response of the petitioner if he was ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions applicable. The petitioner''s consent was communicated on 25.06.2018 and it is thereafter that the aforesaid direction to have a fresh valuation and a fresh auction has been issued. 9. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 92 of the said Act. A lease can be created by the Municipal Council subject to obtaining sanction of the State Government. The land in question though belongs to the Municipal Council, the same is held by it in trust. One of the aspects that is required to be considered by the State Government while according sanction under Section 92(1) of the said Act is the financial implication on the Municipal Council. If while according such sanction, the State Government is of the opinion that higher revenue can be received by the Municipal Council while it proposes to lease out the land vested in it, such direction will have to be viewed as having been issued in public interest. There cannot be any quarrel that if the Municipal Council is in a position to raise higher revenue, the State Government would be justified in directing it to take such steps in that regard. As held in Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus New Delhi Municipal Council, (2007) AIR SC 3131 , public auction is a transparent mode of disposal of public property. In the present case, the valuation in question has been undertaken in the year 2006. Pursuant thereto the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,20,553/- and the lease was for a period of thirty years. In the year 2006, the petitioner had deposited Rs.40,000/- while balance amount of Rs.86,000/- was deposited in the year 2012. In the present case, the valuation in question has been undertaken in the year 2006. Pursuant thereto the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,20,553/- and the lease was for a period of thirty years. In the year 2006, the petitioner had deposited Rs.40,000/- while balance amount of Rs.86,000/- was deposited in the year 2012. The lease if granted for thirty years would be from the year 2019. In the aforesaid backdrop therefore if the State Government was of the opinion that holding a fresh auction could result in the Municipal Council getting higher revenue, the directions issued by the communication dated 20.10.2018 in that regard cannot be faulted. In the facts of the present case and as the State Government was of the view that period of more than nine years had elapsed since the passing of the resolution dated 24.08.2009, the direction impugned is not liable to be interfered with as it has been issued in larger public interest. 10. It may however be observed that the petitioner cannot be faulted for the passage of time. He had deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with the Municipal Council. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be refunded the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner is also free to agitate his grievances and seek appropriate damages if he so desires from the Municipal Council by filing appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court. His legal right to seek refund of the amounts deposited by him at a higher rate of interest is kept open. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed:- I. The order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Collector is set aside. II. The direction issued on 20.10.2018 by the State Government is upheld. III. The respondent no.1-Municipal Council shall refund the amount of Rs.1,26,000/- deposited by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date aforesaid amount was deposited till realization. IV. The petitioner is at liberty to claim damages from the respondent no.1-Municipal Council if so advised by adopting appropriate remedy in the Civil Court. If such claim is raised, the Civil Court is free to deal with the same in accordance with law. The right of the petitioner to seek refund of Rs.1,26,000/- at a higher rate of interest is kept open. 12. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. If such claim is raised, the Civil Court is free to deal with the same in accordance with law. The right of the petitioner to seek refund of Rs.1,26,000/- at a higher rate of interest is kept open. 12. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. The parties shall bear their own costs.