ORDER : Sri.Harish Kumar M.S., learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri.M.A.Subramani, learned Counsel for respondent, have appeared through video conferencing. 2. It is stated that the Municipal Council, Harapanahalli, by taking necessary approval from the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, issued the tender notification on 06.11.2012 to auction the shop No.4 situated in Block ‘A’ of the complex constructed by the Municipal Council, Harapanahalli under IDSMT scheme for rent. The petitioner intended to run a provisional store participated in the Tender process by depositing the EMD amount of Rs.1,00,000/-along with other bidders. He participated in the auction and became the successful bidder. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Harapanahalli, finalized the name of the petitioner and sent a report on 22.11.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission to allot the shop. The Deputy Commissioner after noticing that the auction proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law and taking note of the fact that the petitioner being the highest bidder passed the order directing the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Harapanahalli, to allot the shop to the sole proprietary concern of A.Rahamatulla and brothers. The Chief Officer as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner executed the registered lease deed in favor of the petitioner on 27.11.2012 in respect of RCC shop No.4 in ‘A’ Block situated near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Harapanahalli, under IDSMT scheme and handed over the possession of the shop premises to the petitioner. That being the case, the Chief Officer issued a notice on 06.12.2012 calling for a General Body Meeting of Municipal Council, Harapanahalli to be held on 15.12.2012 to discuss the issues mentioned in the notice and on the very same day, the Chief Officer visited the shop and directed the petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the shop on the ground that some of the members of the Municipal Council have raised objections regarding the auction. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to take shelter under the law and initiated action and filed a civil suit on 10.12.2012 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Harapanahalli in O.S.No.310/2012 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Chief Officer from evicting him without due process of law. As matter stood thus, the President of the Municipal Council held a General Body Meeting on 15.12.2012. Dn), Harapanahalli in O.S.No.310/2012 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Chief Officer from evicting him without due process of law. As matter stood thus, the President of the Municipal Council held a General Body Meeting on 15.12.2012. It is stated that though there was no agenda to discuss about the issue with regard to auction of shop in question, but the same was discussed and it was resolved to cancel the allotment of shop which was made in favor of petitioner. Therefore, petitioner moved the suit before the Vacation Court and sought for grant of an interim order of temporary injunction. It is stated that the Civil Court ordered temporary injunction on 19.12.2012 and directed the defendant not to evict or dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. It is averred that on 22.12.2012, a representation was also submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere requesting not to give any approval to the resolution dated 15.12.2012. Contending that the act of the respondent in passing the resolution is contrary to its earlier resolution and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and unsustainable in law the petitioner, left with no other alternate or efficacious remedy, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner has urged several grounds. 4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of petitioner and respondent and perused the Annexures with care. The writ petition is filed in the form of certiorari to quash the resolution passed by the respondent on 15.12.2012 so far as subject No.156 is concerned. The simple question here is whether the power has been improperly exercised by the respondent? 5. Before I answer the question, a short introductory outline about public law is essential to understand the issue. An important aspect of public law review is to not only the enforcement of private rights but to keep the administrative and quasi-administrative machinery within proper control. Certiorari is a judicial order operating in personam and made in the original legal proceedings, directed by the Supreme Court or High Court to any Constitutional, statutory or non-statutory body or person, requiring the records of any action to be certified by the Court and dealt with according to law. The requirement that certiorari can be issued only when the action is judicial or quasi-judicial is no more valid. The requirement that certiorari can be issued only when the action is judicial or quasi-judicial is no more valid. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the auction was conducted by the respondent and petitioner became the successful bidder and accordingly, he was allotted the shop. Further, it is evident from Annexure-D that there is a registered lease deed entered into between the Chief Officer and the petitioner on 27.11.2012. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the auction proceedings are held in accordance with law and even the allotment is also done away by executing a registered lease deed by following the due process of law by the respondent. Hence, the action on behalf of the respondent in holding a General Body Meeting without any agenda and consequently, passing a resolution to cancel the allotment of shop is wholly untenable. While arguing the matter, learned Counsel for petitioner adhered to the contention that the act of the respondent is in violation of the provisions of the statute and the respondent cannot take away the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on trade in the shop which was allotted to him by the respondent themselves. I have taken note of the submission with utmost care. It is significant to remember that the auction was conducted in accordance with law and petitioner was allotted the shop and a registered lease deed also entered into between the parties. Undoubtedly, there is an executed contract between the respondent and the petitioner. The terms and conditions of the contract are binding upon the parties. Such being the case, the action of the respondent in holding a General Body Meeting without any agenda and to pass a resolution to cancel the allotment of shop is wholly unfair. Normally, the objections will come from the co-bidders. But in this case, no such objections appear to have come from the co-bidders. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the decision to cancel the allotment of site would virtually amount to termination of the contract unilaterally. Therefore, in my considered view, the same is contrary to the fundamental principles of Contract Act and is impermissible in law. But in this case, no such objections appear to have come from the co-bidders. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the decision to cancel the allotment of site would virtually amount to termination of the contract unilaterally. Therefore, in my considered view, the same is contrary to the fundamental principles of Contract Act and is impermissible in law. It is perhaps well to observe that the Courts have often been called upon to consider the circumstances in which the statutory bodies and quasi-judicial bodies have failed to act and discharge their statutory obligations in accordance with law. This is one of such case. The decision to cancel the allotment of site is “perverse” and “absurd”. -implying that the decision maker has “taken leave of his senses”. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order of Certiorari to quash the resolution is granted. Accordingly, the resolution dated 15.12.2012 passed by the respondent in so far as subject No.156 vide Annexure-'K' is quashed.