CIVIL APPEAL 12109 of 2012 on 10 December 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 12109 of 2012

Date of decision: 10.12.2012

Manjit Singh and others

..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate, Addl. AG, Punjab with Mr. Mikhil Kad, AAG, Punjab.

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 13.10.2011(Annexure P-1) and a consequential direction to confirm the auction afteraccepting their highest bids for one or the other site at Grain Market,Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. The facts may be noticed briefly. Pursuant to theadvertisement dated 6.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) 17 sites at Grain Market,Batala, along with various other sites at different places were decided tobe auctioned on 29.7.2008. 17 sites at Batala included 14 grain shops,one shop-cum-flat and 2 booth sites. The petitioners were amongst 25

prospective bidders who deposited the earnest money and participated inthe auction. Only 22 out of them, however, actually participated andwere successful in bidding for one or the other site. The auction held on29.7.2008 in favour of the petitioners, however, was not approved by theCompetent Authority who cancelled it on 6/7.8.2008 i.e. within a week ofthe auction. The petitioners came to this Court in CWP No. 10696 of2008 which was decided on 15.7.2011 (Annexure P-3), setting aside theorder dated 6/7.8.2008 with liberty to the petitioners to appear before theAdministrator who was required to decide the matter afresh.3.Pursuant to those directions the Director-cum-Administrator,New Mandi Township, Punjab has passed the impugned order dated13.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) reiterating the cancellation of auction heldon 29.7.2008. The Administrator though has observed that full publicityfor the auction was given and the bids were more than the reserve pricebut he has found that the “auction lacked competition due to morenumber of plots than the number of purchasers” and that “there seemsconnivance of the purchasers while giving bids”. On seeing thevideography, he has further observed that “there seems very lessexcitement/zeal and it gives impression that the auction has been givenby the bidders with their consent”.

4. The respondents in their reply affidavit have elaborated theabove-stated reasons by illustrating the following:- “(6)The case of the department was presented byShri Gurnek Singh Superintendent. The case of theoffice is that in spite of the fact that before the auction,Shri Gurnek Singh Superintendent. The case of theoffice is that in spite of the fact that before the auction,

as per rules, advertisements were given in thenewspapers with regard to the auction and fullpublicity was done but in comparison to the number ofplots, the number of purchasers were very less. Out ofthose of 25 who had deposited earnest money 5-6persons even did not take any interest in the auction,the auction bid was repeated by 5-6 persons which isevident from the bid sheets. (Grain shops) for plot No.1 the number of bidders were -4, for plot No. 2 thenumber of bidders were -3, for plot No. 3 the numberof bidders were -4, for plot No. 4 the number ofbidders were -3, for plot No. 5 the number of bidderswere -4, for plot No. 6 the number of bidders were -3,for plot No. 7 the number of bidders were -5, for plotNo. 8 the number of bidders were -5, for plot No. 9 thenumber of bidders were -5, for plot No. 10 the numberof bidders were -5, for plot No. 11 the number ofbidders were -3, for plot No. 12 the number of bidderswere -3, for plot No. 13 the number of bidders were-1,for plot No. 14 the number of bidders were-3, for SCFplot No. 68 the number of bidders were-4, for boothplot No. 11 the number of bidders were-3 and forbooth Plot No. 188 the number of bidders were-6.Almost for all the plots, the bid was given by ManjitSingh, Paramjit Singh, Manvir Singh. Jasbir Singh did not take part in any bid except for booth No. 188 andbid of this booth was started at Rs.3,55,000/- andended at Rs.3,81,000/-.”

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gonethrough the record.

6. The petitioners may be true in contending that no prospectivebidder was deprived of participation or that the bid given by them wasmore than the reserved price. The issue that, however, arises forconsideration is whether there existed valid reasons for not confirmingthe auction

7. A Full Bench of this Court inSubhash ChandVs. State ofHaryana and others, AIR 2007 P&H 167, ruled that ordinarilyconfirmation of an auction held in a transparent manner cannot be refusedon whims and fancies or for arbitrary reasons but in 'public interest' theCompetent Authority can decline confirmation of the same. Theconnotation 'public interest' carries an expansive meaning. Loss to theState exchequer undoubtedly, is an essential ingredient of 'publicinterest'. In other words, if the Competent Authority forms a bona fideopinion that had the auction been conducted in a more transparent, openand competitive manner the sites would have fetched higher price, such aconclusion, if founded upon plausible reasons, will bring the action ofnon-confirmation within the ambit of 'public interest' and may not call forany interference by a Writ Court in exercise of its discretionaryjurisdiction.

8. In the instant case, the facts speak for themselves. The CWP No. 12109 of 2012

-5-

Competent Authority without loss of time and within one week of theauction, decided to cancel and disapproved the same on finding that thebidders had apparently formed a cartel, leaving no scope for competitivebids. The bidders apparently connived and resolved to allot the sitesamong themselves and bidded accordingly. In these circumstances, thecategoric plea taken by the respondents that the subject sites can fetchhigher price and earn more revenue, thus, warrants no interference by thisCourt. The aforesaid conclusion was drawn within one week of theauction on consideration of the material produced by the officers whowere present at the auction site and were fully aware of the fact situation.The impugned order thus, deserves to be upheld.

Ordered accordingly.

Conclusion

However, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner ifnot refunded so far, be refunded within one month from the date ofreceipt of certified copy of this order.

Dasti.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

December 10, 2012rishu

( R.P. NAGRATH )JUDGE