- (1.)This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2012 in W.P.No.6814/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent (petitioner in writ petition).
(2.)Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed a petition for quashment of the order Annexure P/9 dated 14/08/09 passed by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No.1 to cancel the allotment of shop No.13, which was in favour of the petitioner and also for quashment of the order Annexure P/10 which is the consequential order of Annexure P/9 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the allotment was cancelled.
Short facts of the case are that 28 shops were constructed by the respondent No.1 in a shopping complex namely MSG Complex at Manasa, which were auctioned. Petitioner also participated in the auction for shop No.13 and was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.3.26 lacs. Upon depositing the amount the allotment order and the possession was given to the petitioner. Thereafter some complaint was made to the respondent No.2 relating to eligibility of the petitioner to participate in auction. On that basis the order Annexure P/9 was issued by the respondent No.2 whereby it was directed that the allotment of the petitioner be cancelled and in consequence respondent No.1 cancelled the allotment vide order Annexure P/10.

(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders Annexue P/9 and Annexure P/10 are illegal, without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to sustain. It is submitted that the auction took place in the month of December, 2006, while the order Annexure P/9 has been passed on 14/08/09 i.e. after more than two and half year. It is submitted that otherwise also the Collector was having no jurisdiction to issue any instructions to the respondent No.1 for performance of tis job under M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. It is submitted that the order Annexure P/10 has been passed by the respondent No.1 keeping in view the provisions of Section 98 of the Municipalities Act. It is subitted that the provisions are not applicable in the present case. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders Annexure P/9 & P/10 be quashed.