Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1593 (PNJ)

Chaudhary Traders v. State of Haryana

2013-12-03

MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.:- In an open auction held on 22.11.2000, petitioner No.1 was the highest bidder at Rs.7,15,000/- for purchase of Plot No.4 and petitioner No.2, who had participated along with his brothers, namely, Shri Suresh Chand and Mahesh Chand, was the highest bidder at Rs.7,35,000/- for Plot No.3 in the New Grain Market, Mohna, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the sites in question’). 2. Petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- each as security and participated in the auction and after having been successful in the said auction, deposited Rs.1,78,750/- and Rs.1,83,750/-, respectively, being 25% of the total sale price of the sites in question, at the fall of hammer. As per terms and conditions of the auction notice, remaining amount of sale consideration could be deposited, without interest, within 30 days from the date of issue of letter of allotment or, with interest @ 15% per annum, in six equated half yearly installments. . 3. The Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board approved the auction, under Section 18 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, vide order letter dated 06.12.2000 (Annexure P-2), but despite this fact, possession of the sites in question has not been given to the petitioners which led the petitioner to make representation dated 13.08.2002 (Annexure P-3) but in spite of that possession of the sites in question was not delivered to them. When petitioners visited the office of respondent No.2, they come to know that C.W.P. No.15975 of 2000 had been filed to challenge the cancellation of the 1998 auction in which these very sites were put to auction and the sites in question had been kept reserved for the petitioners in that Civil Writ Petition vide order dated 15.02.2002 (Annexure P- 4). 4. To seek issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue letters of allotment in their favour with regard to Plot Nos.3 and 4 or in the alternative to allot and give possession to them of plots of similar size in the same mandi, the petitioners have brought the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. 5. Respondents have filed a written response, wherein, while accepting the pleas of the petitioners, it is stated that before bid given by the petitioner could be approved, the previous highest bidders of Plot Nos.3 and 4 had filed C.W.P. No.15975 of 2000, ‘Lalit Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana and others’ before this Court and in that Civil Writ Petition, vide order dated 22.11.2000, while issuing notice of motion, the respondents were directed by this Court that auction, if any, held on 22.11.2000 would not be confirmed. Respondents then filed an application for vacation of stay for recall/modification of order dated 22.11.2000 and this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2002 modified the interim order to the extent that Plot Nos. 3 and 4 would be kept reserved for the petitioners in that Civil Writ Petition till the decision of Civil Writ Petition No.15975 of 2000 and respondents were allowed liberty to pursue the proceedings with respect to remaining plots and it was for that reason that the respondents were unable to issue allotment letters with regard to Plot Nos. 3 and 4 to the petitioners. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Submissions have been made on behalf of the parties on the lines of what is stated in the petition and in the written response. This shows that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners were the highest bidders in respect of the sites in question and the bids given by them were approved by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that allotment and possession of the sites in question could not be given to the petitioners in view of interim orders passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15975 of 2000, i.e., reserving the sites in question for the petitioners in that Civil Writ Petition. However, Civil Writ Petition No.15975 of 2000 has been allowed vide separate detailed judgment of the day passed therein and that being so Plot Nos. 3 and 4 are no longer available for being allotted to the petitioners herein. 8. However, Civil Writ Petition No.15975 of 2000 has been allowed vide separate detailed judgment of the day passed therein and that being so Plot Nos. 3 and 4 are no longer available for being allotted to the petitioners herein. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioners having remained successful in the auction and their bids having been approved after they deposited 25% of the total sale consideration of the sites in question, are found entitled to be accommodated in some alternative sites of same size and on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the sites for which they participated in the auction and were successful. 9. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to allot alternative sites of same size as Plot Nos. 3 and 4 to the petitioners on the same terms and conditions as aforesaid within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. No costs.