JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners have invoked the writ petition of this Court for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 24.05.1996 (Annexure P-2), whereby the auction of Shop-cum-Flat plot Nos.1 and 3 were not confirmed and the Municipal Council was directed to conduct auction again after due publicity. 2. The Municipal Council put two shops cum flats in Model Town, Patiala for auction after getting its price reserved. The auction notice was published for conducting auction on 28.12.1995. The reserved price for the shop-cum-flat was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per sq. yard. 3. The petitioners were the participants for purchase of the shop-cum- flat. The petitioners made the highest bid at Rs.2,200/- per sq. yard and deposited Rs.1,75,000/- as 30% of the total amount on the date of auction i.e. 28.12.1995. But when the file was put up for confirmation, the Deputy Commissioner declined to confirm the auction. Therefore, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for seeking confirmation of the aforesaid auction, which was declined by the order of the Deputy Commissioner on 24.05.1996 (Annexure P-2). 4. Learned Deputy Commissioner had noticed in this respect of auction of plot No.1 that only three persons, namely, Karampal, Anand Kumar and Gurbachan Singh had participated, whereas in auction of plot No.3, only two persons, namely, Karampal and Gurbachan Singh had participated. It was found that a comparison of two auction records leads to infer that only two persons had actively participated in the auction. These two persons colluded in the auction with a view to keep the rate low. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner returned a finding that the auction being collusive and plots have not fetched true value, which could have been realized by the Municipal Council had the auction been open, free and fare. 5. In reply, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State relies upon Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 548 titled as Subhash Chand vs. State of Haryana and others [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1985 (DB)] : to contend that mere giving of highest bid does not confer any right on the participants. It has been held that the reasons have to be recorded when the highest bid is not to be accepted. The relevant extract reads as under: “14. It has been held that the reasons have to be recorded when the highest bid is not to be accepted. The relevant extract reads as under: “14. In our view, the above quoted observations in Surja Ram v. The State of Haryana and another, 1984 RRR 104 have been made in the context of locus standi of the petitioner. The highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by the competent authority, and consequential sale-certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder “right to property” of the type which is protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It, however, also does not mean that even if the highest bid is not accepted by the competent authority, either without citing any reason and/or for totally arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, the highest bidder does not even acquire a right to assail the action of the competent authority. The highest bidder who had a legitimate exception to acquire ownership of the property, unless his bid was found to be suffering from any legal infirmity, has an indefeasible right to knock at the doors of an appropriate forum including a Constitutional Court and to question the legality of the decision of the competent authority on grounds like it being contrary to the Statute or the rules or the Constitution. In other words, the refusal to accept the highest bid cannot foreclose the right of the highest bidder to put the action of the competent authority to judicial scrutiny. We are, thus, of the considered view that observations of the Full Bench in Surja Ram’s case (supra), in respect of “Right to Property” are limited to confer the highest bidder the right to challenge an action of the appropriate authority in refusing to accept the highest or other bids.” 6. As against the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the judgment of Single Bench of Delhi High Court reported as 1994(3) R.R.R. 142 titled as Radhey Shyam Aggarwal vs. Delhi Development Authority and judgment of this Court reported as 1992(1) R.R.R. 302 titled as Chhaja Ram Dahiya vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. 7. In view of the binding precedent of Full Bench, the reliance of the aforesaid judgments is not tenable. A categorical finding has been recorded that there is a collusion. Thus the petitioners cannot claim any right to seek confirmation of auction. 7. In view of the binding precedent of Full Bench, the reliance of the aforesaid judgments is not tenable. A categorical finding has been recorded that there is a collusion. Thus the petitioners cannot claim any right to seek confirmation of auction. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have deposited Rs.1,75,000/- at the time of auction and that the respondents never offered to return the amount. In view thereof, If the amount was not offered for return, the respondents shall return the amount to the petitioners with 9% simple interest per annum. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————