Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1638 (PNJ)

Laxmi Narain v. State of Haryana

2008-09-22

HEMANT GUPTA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.:-The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 27.05.2008, Annexure P-7, whereby highest bid of the petitioner in respect of 5 acres of land was not approved and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been refunded. 2. The Irrigation Department, Government of Haryana, in its meeting dated 22.12.2000 decided to dispose off surplus land and buildings of District Sirsa. 45 number of sites were to be disposed off through public auction as per office order dated 19.06.2001. The auction of the disputed land was conducted on 13.08.2003 and the petitioner was the highest bidder who has given bid of Rs.3,20,000/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the auction money on the same date. The Superintending Engineer sought approval of such auction but the same was declined vide communication dated 27.05.2008 and the amount deposited by the petitioner was returned through cheque. The petitioner claims that since he is the highest bidder, the respondents are bound to accept the highest bid and mere inadequacy of the price is no ground of not confirming the sale. Reliance was placed upon Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Surja Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1984 PLJ 282. The said judgment is to the effect that it is open to the respondent not to accept the highest bid but reasons are to be recorded. That was a case where the evacuee property was put to sale by the Settlement Commissioner. The Rules for sale of surplus rural evacuee property were being considered by the Full Bench wherein it was found that the Settlement Commissioner has an absolute power not to accept the highest or other bid but that does not absolve the authority of not recording the reasons. 3. We are of the opinion that in the absence of approval of sale from the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled to any declaration that the sale stands concluded. The State Government is the owner of the land. Mere participation in auction and deposit of earnest money does not confer any vested right in the petitioner to seek confirmation of sale. It is for the vendor i.e. the State Government to grant approval of sale, keeping in view its interest in the property, sale consideration or the fact that the Government has changed its mind for sale of the property. It is for the vendor i.e. the State Government to grant approval of sale, keeping in view its interest in the property, sale consideration or the fact that the Government has changed its mind for sale of the property. In respect of 5 acres of land, the highest bid is of Rs.3,20,000/-. It is not only inadequate out shockingly low and public property cannot be permitted to be frittered away in such manner. 4. In terms of Rules of Business of the State Government, the action on behalf of the State Government is required to be taken by the Secretary to the Government. Therefore, unless decision of sale of property is taken at the level of Secretary to the Government, no right accrues to the petitioner. Still further, in Laxmikant and others vs. Satyawan and others, AIR 1996 SC 2052, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the highest bidder has no right to seek confirmation of the sale. It was held to the following effect:­ “………..From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that even if the pubic auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This Court has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan Mishra etc vs. State of Orissa, 1971 (3) SCC 153 : (AIR 1971 SC 733); State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972) 2 SCC 36: (AIR 1972 SC 1816); Union of India vs. M/s Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (sic) AIR 1971 SC 2295 and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, (1982) 2 SCC 365. It has been repeatedly pointed out, that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. It has been repeatedly pointed out, that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the condition of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held...” In Rajasthan Housing Board and another vs. G.S. Investments and another, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 477, if Hon’ble Supreme Court found that even if there was some defect in the ultimate decision resulting in the cancellation of auction, the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised with great care and caution and should be exercised only in furtherance of public interest. It was held to the following effect: “ The sale of plots by the Rajasthan Housing Board by means of an auction is essentially a commercial transaction. Even if some defect was found in, the ultimate decision resulting in cancellation of the auction, the Court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution with great care and caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether it should interfere with the decision of the authority…”. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17003 of 2007, titled Sanjiv Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.09.2008, relying upon earlier Division Bench judgment reported as Suraj Bhan vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 18351 of 2006 decided on 06.11.2007, has held that unless approval is granted by the State Government, the highest bidder is not entitled to seek confirmation. The Court was considering the auction of the public property in similar manner. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the State Government in not granting approval to the auction conducted in the year 2003. ----------------