Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 150 (AP)

G. Veerabhadra Rao v. Managing Director

2004-02-09

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
( 1 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. , the 1st respondent had conducted auction for sale of a house bearing No. MIG 20 at Jawahar Auto Nagar Housing Complex, APIIC Colony, Vijayawada on 09. 04. 1996. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,26,000. 00. He made the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 10,000. 00. He was issued a letter of allotment dated 12. 4. 1996, requiring him to pay 50% of the sale consideration within 15 days and to pay the remaining 50%. ( 2 ) WITHIN six months with interest at 18% to be compounded after every three months. On receiving the letter of allotment, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26. 4. 1996 requesting the respondents to grant time upto 31. 5. 1996, for payment of initial 50% of the consideration. While the representation was pending with the respondent, one Battu Komala Sarani, filed W. P. No. 7917 of 1996, challenging the auction of the said house. This Court passed interim order on 15. 4. 1996. On receipt of the same, the respondents addressed a letter dated 2. 5. 1996 to the petitioner informing that in view of the orders of this Court in the said Writ Petition, they can not accept the first instalment of 50% of the consideration. The petitioner was informed that either he can wait till the disposal of the Writ Petition, or take back the Earnest Money Deposit paid by him. The petitioner did not respond to this letter in any form. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 10. 07. 1992. ( 3 ) AFTER dismissal of the Writ Petition, the respondents addressed a letter dated 17. 7. 2003 to the petitioner stating that the offer of allotment issued to him on 12. 4. 1996 is withdrawn and enclosed a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00. The respondents have also issued a notification on the same day proposing to auction the house bearing No. MIG 20. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. He contends that the allotment in his favour could not fructify only on account of the interim orders granted by this Court in W. P. No. 7917 of 1996 and after dismissal of the same, the respondents did not call upon him to pay the consideration. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. He contends that the allotment in his favour could not fructify only on account of the interim orders granted by this Court in W. P. No. 7917 of 1996 and after dismissal of the same, the respondents did not call upon him to pay the consideration. It is his case that he was not aware of the progress of W. P. No. 7917 of 1996, since he was not a party to it and the respondents were under an obligation to call upon him to pay the balance consideration soon after the dismissal of writ petition. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the various facts commencing with the order of allotment in favour of petitioner on 12. 4. 1996, to the conducting of auction in pursuance of Notification dated 17. 7. 2003 are furnished. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner ought to have informed them as to whether he keeps his offer in the bid alive till the disposal of the writ petition and since such a step was not taken, they were left with no alternative, except to put the house to auction. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Sri R. Subbarao. It is a matter of record that the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for the premises MIG 20 at the place referred to above in the auction conducted on 9. 4. 1996 pursuant to the same, he was issued an order of allotment dated 12. 4. 1996. He submitted a representation dated 15. 4. 1996 seeking time till the end of May, 1996. Even before the respondents took any decision in the matter, this Court passed an interim order in W. P. No. 7917 of 1996. In that view of the matter, the petitioner as well as the respondents were prevented from proceeding with the transaction. The stay continued for six years. The writ petition was dismissed only on 10. 7. 2002. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the obstacle for the petitioner and respondents to proceed with the transaction was removed. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to verify from the petitioner as to whether he is willing to proceed with the transaction in pursuance of the letter of allotment. 7. 2002. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the obstacle for the petitioner and respondents to proceed with the transaction was removed. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to verify from the petitioner as to whether he is willing to proceed with the transaction in pursuance of the letter of allotment. They have not chosen to do so. After one year, they have addressed a letter dated 17. 7. 2003 withdrawing the allotment and refunding the Earnest Money Deposit. In this letter, the only lapse attributed to the petitioner is that he is not respondent to the letter dated 2. 5. 1996, where under the respondents informed him about the grant of interim orders by this Court and consequences thereof. ( 6 ) THE respondents could certainly have taken advantage of the failure of the petitioner to respond the letter dated 2. 5. 1996, if, only, the petitioner was put on strict terms. A reading of the letter dated 2. 5. 96 discloses that, except informing the petitioner of the consequence that have flown from the grant of interim orders of this Court in W. P. No. 7917 of 1996, the respondents did not expect any positive steps from the petitioner. The relevant sentence in the letter reads as under: you can wait till the case is disposed off or the EMD amount paid by you will be refunded in view of Court case. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has chosen to wait till the disposal of the case. The letter did not expect him to take any specific step to keep his offer alive. His waiting till the disposal of the case was sufficient, even according to the said letter, to keep the offer alive. The failure of the petitioner to address any letter, cannot be said to have saddled the respondents with any power to cancel the allotment. Hence, the steps taken by the respondents, be it withdrawal of allotment through their letter dated 17. 7. 2003, or notification of the house for re-auction through a notification of the same date, can not be said to be legal. Hence, the letter dated 17. 7. 2003 withdrawing the allotment in favour of the petitioner and auction Notification dated 17. 7. 2003 in so far as it relates to the premises MIG 20 are set aside. 7. 2003, or notification of the house for re-auction through a notification of the same date, can not be said to be legal. Hence, the letter dated 17. 7. 2003 withdrawing the allotment in favour of the petitioner and auction Notification dated 17. 7. 2003 in so far as it relates to the premises MIG 20 are set aside. ( 8 ) IT is true that the offer of the petitioner for the house at Rs. 2,26,000. 00 was accepted. Since the respondents did not have the benefit of that amount, it would not be reasonable to require them to transfer the house in favour of the petitioner for the same amount. While the respondents were denied the benefit of amount, the petitioner too was also denied the benefit of living therein. A balance has to be maintained between the two factors. In their Notification dated 17. 7. 2003, the respondents have valued the house at Rs. 2,81,115. 00. This Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if the respondents required to transfer the house in favour of the petitioner on receiving the consideration notified by the respondents themselves in the year 2003. ( 9 ) HENCE, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings dated 17. 7. 2003 withdrawing the allotment in favour of the petitioner as well as the Notification dated 17. 7. 2003 insofar as it relates to MIG 20. The respondents are directed to transfer and convey the said house in favour of the petitioner on payment of an amount of Rs. 2,81,115. 00 duly taking into account, the Earnest Money Deposit paid by the petitioner. It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit the amount within four weeks from today and the necessary deed shall be executed within three weeks from the date of payment of consideration. No costs. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. ( 10 ) WITNESS the Honble Sri. Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Monday the Ninth Day of February, Two Thousand and Four.