C.M. No.996 of 2010 and -1- LPA No.364 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.996 of 2010 and LPA No.364 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.4.2010 M/s Paramdeep Commission Agents and others ............Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. ALOK SINGH, J. C.M. No.996 of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, application is allowed and de- lay of 92 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.364 of 2010 (O&M) 1. In this appeal, appellants are challenging the judgment dated 19.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners/appellants challenging the auction made by the respondents, ignoring the right of the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioners are C.M. No.996 of 2010 and -2- LPA No.364 of 2010 (O&M) doing the business of Commission Agents and are trading in agricultural produce in Bhagtanwala Mandi, District Amritsar; On 16.11.2006, respondent-authorities again published a notice proposing to auction the plots in New Grain Market Bhagtanwala, Amritsar; Auction was held on 23/24.11.2006 and thereafter on 14/15.12.2006. The contention of the petitioners is that auction was made in a very malafide manner, selected persons were called inside the room, in batches and, thereafter, plots were allotted to them, keeping the petitioners in dark. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 4. Impugned judgment reveals that auction was open and proceedings were video-graphed. Video Compact Disk (VCD) of the recorded version of the auction was produced before the learned Single Judge and was displayed on a laptop. Having seen the video- graphed recording on laptop, learned Single Judge has recorded finding of fact as under:- “It appears that the auction was conducted in the room, in which among Officers and large number of participants may be more than 100 were presents. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were not allowed to enter in the room. The contention has been specifically denied by the respondents.” 5. The sole question as to whether petitioners were allowed to enter into the room where proceedings were going on, is a C.M. No.996 of 2010 and -3- LPA No.364 of 2010 (O&M) question of fact, which can not be examined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is difficult to accept contention of the petitioners that only few selected persons were allowed to enter into the room and to participate in the auction proceedings and petitioners were denied entry. 6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 7. The appeal is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 28th April, 2010 JUDGE ashish