CWP No. 1997 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1997 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 Resham Singh Thiara ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Shri Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Jattana, Additonal AG, Punjab. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure P.13), whereby the instalments deposited by the petitioner, were ordered to be forfeited in terms of Condition No. 13 of the Terms and Conditions of the auction. In terms of auction notice (Annexure P.1), the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder in an action held on 19.6.1998. The petitioner was to deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days from the date of auction and the remaining amount in lump sum within 60 days of the date of auction or the same could be deposited in annual instalments along with interest @ 15% p.a. The bid of the petitioner was for Rs.61,12,500/- in respect of the land measuring 9.78 acres. It is the case of the petitioner that he deposited 10% of the auction amount i.e. Rs.6,11,250/- on the spot and CWP No. 1997 of 2008 (2) a sum of Rs.11 lacs along with interest @ 15% on 2.11.1999. Thus, the petitioner has deposited a total amount of Rs.17,11,250/-. It is pointed out that the possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner on 7.6.2000, though it was required to be delivered on deposit of 25% of the bid amount. Shri Jattana states that the bid amount was payable in 6th annual instalments of Rs.11 lacs approximately inclusive of interest. But, on account of default on the part of the petitioner in depositing the said annual instalments, the lease has been cancelled. It was wrongly mentioned that the lease is cancelled under Clause 13. In fact, the lease was cancelled in terms of Clause 10 of the Terms and Conditions of the auction. The petitioner has not deposited the annual instalments in terms of the conditions of the auction, therefore, we do not find that the action of the respondents in ordering the forfeiture of the amount deposited, is illegal or unwarranted, which may require interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11.11.2008 ds