RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THESE appeals are preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant. While we agree fully with the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench, we think it necessary at the same time to emphasise a few aspects relevant in the case of such contracts. First, the relevant facts briefly.

(3.) The appellant questioned the said demand by way of a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He submitted that he was not given due opportunity before cancelling the licence as required by sub -section (1 -A) of section 31, that there was no order of cancellation of licence as such and that there was no proper publicity for the reauction conducted. He submitted that on account of lack of due publicity, only one bidder was present at the reauction and that the shops were sold at a low price. The learned Single Judge was impressed by the said contentions and allowed the writ petition. On appeal, however, the Division Bench rejected all of them. Before we set out the reasoning of the Division Bench, it would be appropriate to set out sub -section (1 -A) of section 31. It reads: