IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7429 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st February, 2011. M/s Ambey Trading Co. & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Monica Chhibbar, DAG, Punjab Mr.H.S.Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 7429 and 9135 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners seek quashing of the public notice dated 19.04.2010 [Annexure P-10] asking them to lift the delivery of sugar which they have purchased in the public auction. They also seek a Mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the security amount deposited by them along with interest. The admitted facts are that in the public auction held on 26th-27th February, 2010 for the sale of sugar, the petitioners participated and were the highest bidders. The auction was conducted on the following terms and conditions:- “1. Any body/businessman/department shall be given more than 500 to 1000 quintal sugar. 2. On the spot, every auctioneer/bidder is required to deposit security/cash by way of bank Draft/Multi-city cheque at the rate of Rs.200/- per quintal. 3. The auctioneers/bidder is required to pay 50% of the amount of payable value by way of bank draft/multi-city cheque within 72 hours to the end of auction. 4. Sugar is to be lifted within a period of one week and before lifting the same, the entire amount is to be paid. 5. The sugar will be delivered on “as is where is' basis”. The petitioners though deposited the security amount and complied with clause No. 2 above, they admittedly failed to pay 50% of the amount of payable value by way bank draft/multi-city cheque within 72 hours of the auction. They have approached this Court now to contend that since condition No. 4 was never complied with by the respondents, namely, the sugar was not allowed to be lifted within one week, the petitioners are entitled to refund of the security amount. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that before invoking clauses 4 and 5, it was imperative upon the petitioners to comply with clause 3 as right to lift the sugar could accrue in their favour only after deposit of 50% of the amount payable towards the value of the sugar. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are dismissed. Dasti. February 21, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE