ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ in the nature of Mandamus, may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 09.12.2018 (Annex-9) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The order of respondent no.3 dated 05.06.2018 (Annex.6) cancelling the auction proceedings dated 30.05.2018 (Annex-1), may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to confirm the minutes of meeting dated 30.05.2018 and allot the respective shops in favour of the petitioners. (iv) The respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to issue necessary approval for allotment of shops to the petitioner. (v) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be granted and (vi) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the bone of contention in the present is the cancellation of the auction proceedings vide the impugned order dated 05.06.2018, thereby cancelling the allotment of shops in favour of the petitioners, near the main entrance and around the four corners of the Mandi Yard, Pratapgarh; further challenge herein is laid to the determination made in the appeal filed by the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 09.12.2018, whereby while rejecting the appeal, the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 was upheld. 2.1 The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, to thwart the impugned action taken by the respondents is that the allotments in question was made in accordance with the Allotment Policy of 2005, meant for the advancement and better functioning of the Mandi area, as well as for securing sufficient financial resources, and thus, as per the petitioners, the allotments in question was lawful. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, an advertisement dated 22.09.2017 was published in two newspapers inviting applications for allotment of shops in the Mandi Yard, and that, the advertisement was also uploaded on the official web portal; a copy thereof was also affixed in the Office of the Mandi Samiti, Collectorate, Municipal Corporation and other Corporations concerned with the allotment process; but since no proceedings were undertaken, pursuant to such advertisement, therefore, six months thereafter, another advertisement for the same purpose was published on 02.05.2018 (last date was fixed as 18.05.2018). 3.1 As per learned counsel, the subsequent advertisement was followed by undertaking of the same exercise as was done pursuant to the initial advertisement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after conclusion of the auction proceedings by the allotment committee on 30.05.2018, each of the petitioners were allotted a shop i.e. 38 shops in total, being the highest bidders (as reflected in the minutes of the meeting dated 30.05.2018 of the committee); whereupon immediately, the petitioners deposited 25% of the bid amount in the Office of the Mandi Samiti. 4.1 Learned counsel also submits that the auction proceedings and the allotments in question was done strictly in accordance with the relevant Rules/Regulations, and that, before doing so, complete procedure, including publication in the newspapers, web publication, videography of the entire proceedings etc. was duly adopted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned action was taken by the respondents only with a view to extend undue benefit to the certain encroachers i.e. traders undertaking business activities in an illegal and unauthorized manner near the Mandi area and having influence over the functioning of the Mandi yard. 5.1 As per learned counsel, the impugned action was taken by the respondents, upon the objections having been raised by the encroachers, even when there was no provision for inviting objections in regard to the allotments in question. 6. 5.1 As per learned counsel, the impugned action was taken by the respondents, upon the objections having been raised by the encroachers, even when there was no provision for inviting objections in regard to the allotments in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in regard to the issue in question, the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh, vide order dated 02.06.2018, proceeded to constitute a Committee comprising Tehsildar, Pratapgarh and Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a report in regard to the auction proceedings dated 30.05.2018; despite the fact that the Tehsildar and the Secretary were already members of the allotment committee, who conducted the auction proceedings in question, culminating into allotment of shops in favour of the petitioners; thereafter, on 04.06.2018, an enquiry report was submitted, pointing out, amongst others, lack of transparency in the auction proceedings in question and collusion amongst the bidders. 6.1 As per learned counsel, apart from the above, a finding was recorded in the aforementioned enquiry report that the auction proceedings in question, could not fetch the required revenue to the Mandi Samiti, thereby causing huge financial loss to it. However, learned counsel submits that the auction proceedings in question was successful in all respects, as it has fetched 60%-70% revenue more than the reserve price for allotment of shops. 7. Thus, as per learned counsel, the aforementioned backdrop clearly shows pre-determination on the part of the authority passing the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 as well as the appellate authority, who vide the impugned order dated 09.12.2018, while uploading the action of cancellation the auction proceedings (allotments) in question, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned orders are clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the enquiry into the matter was ordered by the authority, owing to the fact that apparently, there was some illegality, non-transparency, malpractice, collusion etc. involved in the auction proceedings, culminating into the allotments in question. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposes the allegation levelled by the petitioners that the impugned action was taken just to extend undue benefit to certain encroachers, that too, under influence. 10. involved in the auction proceedings, culminating into the allotments in question. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposes the allegation levelled by the petitioners that the impugned action was taken just to extend undue benefit to certain encroachers, that too, under influence. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the impugned action has been taken, on the grounds, amongst others, that the auction proceedings in question did not fetch sufficient revenue to the Mandi exchequer, which is also reflected in the enquiry report submitted in the matter. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the decision of conducting the auction proceedings afresh is clearly in the interest of the Mandi excheqher, so as to enable it to secure additional and sufficient revenue out of the auction, and the same is not going to cause any prejudice to the petitioners 12. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the petitioners are not entitled to raise any issue regarding the objections having been invited by the respondents in relation to the auction proceeding in question, as the same was done so as to impose requisite transparency and impartiality in the proceedings. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General thus submits that the impugned action clearly falls within the policy domain of the respondents, and therefore, the impugned orders are perfectly justified in law, more particularly, when the same were passed by the concerned authorities after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and duly appreciating the material available on record before them. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 15. At the outset, this Court observes that the enquiry report dated 04.06.2018, on the basis of which, the impugned action was taken by the respondents, lacks in requisite reasoning; as the same apparently speaks only of apprehension regarding collusion amongst the bidders themselves, as also apprehension of the Mandi Samiti being put to a revenue loss. Furthermore, the reply of the respondents also reveals that the impugned action has been taken owing, amongst others, the chances of realization of additional/higher revenue. Furthermore, the reply of the respondents also reveals that the impugned action has been taken owing, amongst others, the chances of realization of additional/higher revenue. The relevant portion of the aforementioned enquiry report is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^tkap fjiksVZ -------------- fuykeh jkf’k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k nqdkuksa dh fuykeh U;wure 9]60]000@& :i;s ,oa vf/kdre 10]30]000@& :i;s rd gh izkIr gqbZ tcfd fuykeh desVh }kjk fuykeh cksyh jkf’k cढ+okus ds Hkjld iz;kl fd;sA Hkjld iz;kl ds ckn Hkh cksyh esa visf{kr o`f) ugha gqbZ blls cksyhnkrkvksa ds e/; vkil esa x ढtksM@iqfyax dk vUns’kk izrhr gksrk gSA blls d`f”k mit e.Mh lfefr dks jktLo dh gkfu dk vUns’kk gS vr% vi;kZIr fuykeh cksyh jkf’k ds dkj.k gksus okys jktLo ds uqdlku dks jksdus ds fy, fuykeh fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr jgsxkA^^ Hkfo”; esa mDr Hkw[k.Mksa dh vkjf{kr nj U;wure 10]30]000@& :i;s izfr Hkw[k.M j[krs gq, iqu% fof/kor fuykeh dh tkuk mfpr jgsxkA tks fd bl fuykeh esa mPpre izkIr nj gSA ;g djus ls Hkfo”; esa jktLo gkuh dh laHkkouk ugha jgsxh A Hkfo”; esa gksus okyh fuykeh esa vf/kd ikjnf’kZrk ,oa csgrj izfrLi/kkZ ds fy, foHkkxh; izko/kkuksa ds vfrfjDr LFkkuh; Lrj ij Hkh O;kid izpkj&izlkj ds fy, ekbZd ls vukmUlesUV] isEiysV] csuj] iksLVj] gksMhZax ,oa fuykeh bfLrgkj ls djus ds fy, vfrfjDr [kpZ dh vuqefr funs’kky; ls ysus gsrq fuosnu fd;k tkosA ,l Mh @& ,l Mh @& rglhynkj lfpo izrkixढ+ d`f”k mit e.Mh lfefr izrkixढ+^^ 16. This Court also observes that the respondents in their reply, failed to substantiate their action of constituting an enquiry committee comprising Tehsildar and Secretary of Mandi Samiti, despite the fact that they were already the members of the allottment committee, who has conducted the auction and allotment proceedings in question, while affirming vide their minutes, that the proceedings in question were lawful and complete procedure was being followed during such proceedings for allotments in question. Thus, the respondents clearly failed to satisfy this Court that as to how in the enquiry report, the Tehsildar and Secretary, Mandi Samiti, could justifiably revisited their own actions, while being the members of the allotment Committee. 17. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that in the given factual matrix, after the allotments in question were made, while following the due procedure, in favour of the petitioners, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 18. 17. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that in the given factual matrix, after the allotments in question were made, while following the due procedure, in favour of the petitioners, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 05.06.2018 and 09.12.2018, the minutes of the meeting dated 30.05.2018 of the allotment committee are upheld. The respondents are accordingly directed to allot the shops question to the petitioners, in case they are otherwise eligible and suitable for the same and fulfills the requisite criteria and conditions therefor.