ORDER : K.M. Mehta, J. The aforesaid applicant has taken out the judges summons for various reliefs, particularly prayer "C" and also filed affidavit, dated March 20, 2000 in support of the same and the matter was heard on 27.3.2000 and on that date after hearing the learned advocate this court had granted prayer "C" made in the judges summons and also notice made returnable on March 29, 2000 and he was requested to communicate and inform the Official Liquidator by fax message and notice was also issued to all the secured creditors and it was observed that the applicant liable for damages and expenses, if any. 2. The matter was placed for hearing on 29.3.2000. However, due to paucity of time the matter could not be heard on 29.3.2000 and 30.3.2000 and on 31.3.2000 the Official Liquidator submitted that in this case though this court (M.S.Parikh, J) has stated that the noting with regard to attachment which has been made in earlier tender shall be made in the advertisement. It was stated that through oversight the same was not stated in the advertisement but when the tender was issued the following conditions were attached: "The intending purchasers/offerers are hereby informed that there is a decree obtained by the applicant in Spl.Civil Suit No.322/85 from the court of the 6th Jt.Civil Judge(S.D.) Baroda against the company in winding up to the tune of Rs. 64,47,580.50 with interest at the rate of 12% on the date of the suit till realisation and , dated 17.1.1989 and that the applicant has already effected attachment of the land and building of the Company situated at Baroda bearing Survey Nos 1863 to 1924 (in all 62 Survey numbers) mentioned in the application of the applicant". 3. It was stated before this court that this court shall see that the intending purchaser must aware of the fact that there is an attachment of the suit property. For that purpose notice has been served. Other secured creditors also support the said contention of the Official Liquidator that although procedural defect was there in the advertisement, same has been subsequently cured and therefore the proceedings initiated by the Official Liquidator shall continue. For that purpose notice has been served. Other secured creditors also support the said contention of the Official Liquidator that although procedural defect was there in the advertisement, same has been subsequently cured and therefore the proceedings initiated by the Official Liquidator shall continue. They also stated that the applicant must prove that because of this procedural defect some injury or hardship or detriment has been ensued and as far as this defect (which was cured as stated hereinbefore) is concerned, applicant has not suffered any loss. If he wants to set aside the auction he must submit that some hardship has been ensued to him because of procedural irregularity in the advertisement. 4. I have perused the necessary record, i.e., the order of the learned single judge, advertisement and subsequent addenda which has been given along with paper book and that subsequent order of this court which is complied with. Though the procedural irregularity is there, however, that has been rectified subsequently and in substance same has been complied with and the applicant has not suffered any injury, hardship or loss. 5. Mr.K.A. Puj, the learned advocate for applicant further submitted that as per the order of the learned single judge, dated 7th July 1999, the Sale committee may fix upset price at Rs. 4,81,00,000/-(Rupees Four Crore Eighty One Lacs only)for the purpose of issuance of advertisement as aforesaid. Mr.Puj submitted that as stated the said Sale Committee has fixed the upset price at Rs. 7,28,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Crore Twenty Eight Lacs) and the same is arbitrary, inconsistent and contrary to the orders of this court. Therefore, the auction proceedings should be set aside. 6. The Official Liquidator has submitted that in the order of this court, dated 7th July, 1999 it is stated that the Sale Committee shall fix the upset price before issuing advertisement and it is also stated there that the upset price is to be fixed at Rs. 4,81,00,000/-. The Official Liquidator submitted that therefore the discretion has been vested in the Sale Committee to fix the upset price before issuing advertisement. Official Liquidator has submitted that he has obtained the Valuation Report from R.N.Consultancy Service, Ahmedabad and the value of the property in question was about Rs. 7.40 crores. 7. 4,81,00,000/-. The Official Liquidator submitted that therefore the discretion has been vested in the Sale Committee to fix the upset price before issuing advertisement. Official Liquidator has submitted that he has obtained the Valuation Report from R.N.Consultancy Service, Ahmedabad and the value of the property in question was about Rs. 7.40 crores. 7. In view of the same the Official Liquidator submitted that in the interest of the company (under liquidation) and in the interest of Secured Creditors and other public at large on the basis of valuation report Sale Committee has fixed the upset price at Rs. 7,28,00,000/- and hence the Sale Committee has acted rationally and reasonably. He has submitted that the upset price which has been stated by the court at Rs. 4,81,00,000/- the same is only a guiding factor and in order to get higher price the Sale Committee after due discussion kept the upset price of Rs. 7,28,00,000/-for land and building. 8. Other counsel on behalf of secured creditors, namely, Mr.Roshan Desai and Mr.D.M.Vasavada have submitted that the applicant has not been able to show that the hardship or loss has been ensued by keeping the upset price at Rs. 7,28,00,000/- He must aver and prove that because of fixation of higher price there is loss or detriment to his interest. Mr.Puj has only submitted that because of artificial higher upset price no buyer will come forward and ultimately the property may not be sold to the public at large. On this submission the official liquidator has stated that earlier when the upset price was fixed at Rs. 8,00,00,000/- at that time also no offers were received for the property in attachment. Official Liquidator pointed out that mere fixation of upset price is not the reason for not getting the intending purchaser but the real reason is that there is the attachment to the property by the applicant and therefore the intending purchasers are not ready and willing to come forward to purchase the property. 9. I have considered the submissions of both sides and I am of the view that in view of the fact that the Official Liquidator has obtained Valuation Report and after relying upon the same the Sale Committee has fixed the upset price, so the said action is rational keeping in mind the directions and in compliance with the orders in question of this court. The Sale Committee considered while fixing the upset price that better price in terms of the valuation is received in the interest of large number of workers as well as secured and unsecured creditors. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the interim order granted by this court dated 27.3.2000 be vacated. 10. Mr.Puj has also submitted that in this case total area of the land is 8,38,530 Sq.ft, i.e.19 acres and 10 gunthas out of which about 32890 Sq.Mtrs of land has been vested in the Government under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act and to that extent the area of land has been reduced. That fact has not been pointed out by the Official Liquidator in the advertisement or in the tenders issued to the intending purchasers. This fact goes to the root of the matter. He has also stated that the Municipal Corporation has to recover Rs. 3.5 crore by way of property tax against the mill company in liquidation and therefore any intending purchaser who purchases the property may be liable to pay the said amount and to that extent the value of the property may be reduced. 11. In that view of the matter, if the following directions are issued, it would meet with the ends of justice: (A) Proceedings of the Sale Committee held on 27.3.2000 are hereby quashed. (B) The Sale Committee shall now again invite offers after publishing fresh advertisement in the newspapers. (C) The Sale Committee is at liberty to consider the contention raised by Mr.Puj as to whether the property which is already attached should be mentioned either in the advertisement as per the order, dated 7.7.99 of this court or the same may be mentioned in the tender forms. (D) As regards fixation of up-set price the Sale Committee shall consider the order, dated 7.7.99 of this court as well as valuation report and shall consider the contention raised by Mr.Puj in this behalf. (E) The Official Liquidator shall consider two new facts mentioned by Mr.Puj that out of land in question about 32,890 Sq.Mtrs of land is vested in the Government under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation) Act and to that extent whether the area is still reduced or remains same and also the notice of the Municipal Corporation to recover Rs. 3.5 crores by way of property tax against the Mill company in liquidation. This fact is mentioned with a view to see that there may not be any future litigation in this behalf. This application stands disposed of subject to aforesaid directions. No costs.