1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.178 OF 2006 (Shri Bhagwandas S. Rathi vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : APRIL 4, 2008 Heard Shri Kalbande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Shri Kalbande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that land of Empress Mill situated at Medical Square, Rambag was sold to K.S.L. and Industries Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Maharaj Agrasen Cooperative Housing Society, Garg Hotel and Real Estate and Vidarbha Premier Housing Society at the rate of Rs.200-235 per square feet for commercial 2 purpose. It is contended that the said land, which is in the prime locality, is sold for a price, which is much less than market price prevalent at the relevant time. We have perused the petition including prayer clause. The petitioner has not given dates on which above referred sale transactions were effected. The details about land/tenements, if any, alleged to have been sold by the Empress Mill were also not given either in the body of the petition or otherwise and, therefore, we have already recorded our prima facie view in this regard in our order dated 17.3.2006 passed in the present petition. Shri Kalbande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that at later point of time, details in this regard were placed on record. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, states that contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are incorrect. It is submitted that procedure adopted by the respondent Authorities is just and proper and the respondent 3 Authorities have executed Sale Deeds in respect of land in question during the period from 1.10.2004 to 7.3.2006 after adopting established procedure. It is contended that land in question was sold at the market price, which was prevalent at the relevant time. It is submitted that land in question was not sold by private negotiations. The respondent Authorities had invited tenders from the prospective purchasers and upset price was also mentioned in the tender notice and after considering eligibility of the tenderers, tenders were finalised and sale deeds were executed in favour of the eligible purchasers and that too, about 4-5 years ago. It is, therefore, contended that petition is neither in the public interest nor respondents have done anything which would harm the public interest. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader states that High Power Committee was constituted for the purpose of disposal of land in question and procedure adopted for sale of land in question is regular procedure which is followed by the State Government or instrumentalities of the State 4 Government while disposing of the property, such as floating of tenders, mentioning of upset price, calling upon the prospective purchasers to submit tenders and after considering eligibility of all the tenderers, conclude the process of tender in favour of only those, who are otherwise eligible as per terms and conditions of the tender documents. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. At the outset we must express that entire transaction was over before petitioner approached this Court including that of execution of sale deeds between respondent Authorities and prospective purchasers. On this short count, the petition could have been dismissed. However, in order to have true and correct picture, we directed respondents to file affidavits and apprise this Court about genuineness of the sale transactions undertaken by the respondent Authorities while conducting sale of land in question. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that procedure undertaken by 5 the respondent Authorities while disposing of the land belonging to Empress Mill was not inconsistent with the established procedure required to be undertaken by the respondent Authorities for disposal of the land and, therefore, it is difficult for us to agree with the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Similarly, after execution of Sale Deeds, we are afraid that this Court will not be able to set aside those Sale Deeds unless petitioner approaches competent forum for the said purpose. Be that as it may, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not hold merit. The petition suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj