rE H AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C) No. 4982 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Neem Som' Versus Respondent : Mumcipal Corpoxatjon Bhilai AND w. PV (C) No. 4983 of 2007 Petitigner : Smt. Vandana Soni Versus Respondent z Municipal Corpomtion Bhilai 4" Post for order on 17August, 2007 . / Sd/— é Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C) No. 4982 of 2007 Petitioner Smt. Neeru Soni, Aged about 33 ycars, W/o Shn‘ N. K. Soni, R/o MIG (C) 166, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tah. 8r. Distt. — Durg (C.G.) VCrSuS Respondent Municipal Corpmation BhiiaL Through : Commissioner Municipal Corporation Supela, Bhilai, Tah. 8n Distt. — Durg AND WP. (C) No. 4983 of 2007 Peiiu'oner Smt. Vandana Soni, Aged about 40 ycaxs, W[o Shxi S. K. Soni, R/o MIG (C) 169, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tab. ck Dim. — Dmg (can) Versus Respondent Municipal Corporation Bhilai, ‘l‘hmugh : Commissioner Municipal Corporation Supela, Bhilai, Tah. 85 Distt. — Durg WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’blc Shri Satish K. mihoui. J Shri V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioners Shri H. B.Agarwa1, Senior Advocate with Shxi Sameer Behar, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER ( Passed on this 2 7 {day of August, 2007) 1. With the consent of the parn’es the matter was heard finally. 2. The petitioner (Smt, Neem Soni) in W.P.(C) No. 4982/2007 and petitioner (Smt. Vandana Som) in W.P.(C) No. 4982/2007 impugns auction notice dated 19.7.2007 (Annexnre P/S) and not the cancellation order dated 8.6.2007 of allotment of the shop No. F/ 16 and F/ 15, mspcctively, in Sheetla Commemial Complex, Bhilai, District - Durg. 3. Accoxling to learned counsel for the petitioners earlier the x‘espondent/Cotyoration issued a auction notice dated 8.3.2006 (Annexure P/ 1) for auction of the shops at various commercial complexes, including Sheena Commercial Complex, Bhilai. The petitionem participated in the auction proceeding and they being the highest bidders in the auction held on 27.3.2006, in the pxemises of the respondent/Corporation wele allotted the shops No. Fl 16 and F/ 15, respectively. The petitioners, accordingly, deposited the required security amount and 1/3’d amount of the total final bid amount on 27.3.2006, itself. It was further stated that the remaining amount was also paid by them, subsequently. 4. The petitioners received the Older dated 8.6.2007 (Annexme P/ 4) in both the petitions that the auction for allotment of the shops in dispute, held on 27.3.2006, has been cancelled by the State Government. Therefore the petitioners were directed to make application for refund of the amount of security deposit. 5. Thereafter, the mspondent/Corporation issued a fresh auction notice dated 19.7.2007 (Annexuie P/5) for allotment of various shops, including the shops in dispute ( F/ 16 and F/ 15 at Sheetla Commercial Complex, Bhilai ), which weie allotted to the petitioners, in the auction held on 27.3.2006, puisuant to the auction notice dated 8.3.2006. 6. Being aggrieved thc petitioners have filed these petitions seeking a writ/dimction to quash the auction notice dated 19.7.2007 (Annexure P/5). . Shn' V. G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the earlier auction notice dated 8.3.2006 (Annexure P/ 1) as well as the subsequent auction notice dated 19.72007 (Annexuxe P/5) clearly provides that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai is the final authority to, appmve the otter of the highest bidder and them is no mention of seeking any approval by the Government in the auction notices. The subsequent auction for allotment of the said shops in dispute, is not sustainable as the shops in dispute have already been allotted to the petitioners in the auction dated 27.3.2006 and thexe was no reason to cancel the same. Show cause notice for cancellation of the allotment of the shops was also not given to the petitioners. . Shri H. B. Agatwal, learned Senior Counsel, with Shri Sameer Behar, leained counsel, appearing for the respondent/Corporation med an application (I.A.No.3) dated 21.8.2007 for dismissing the case for non—joinder of necessaiy party i.e. the State Government. On query that whether the mspondent/Corpoxation intended to me any xeply on merit, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent] Corporation that the application (I.A.No.3) contains the reply also and there is no necessity of filing any return separately on merit. lt was further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation that the State Government has not approved the allommnt of shops in favour of the petitioners, entailing cancellation of the allotment Thus, the allomlent of disputed shops was cancelled and new auction notice dated 19.7.2007 was issued for sale of the shops by auction. The cancellation of the allotment of the Shops was done on the diiection of the State Government. The Commissioner of the respondent/Corporation sent a letter dated 30m March, 2006 to the Secretaxy, Government 'of Chhsttisgarh, Urban Administration and Development Department for approval of the allotment of the shops, held in the auction on 27.3.2006. The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administtation and Development Department cancelled the allotment of the shops, including the shops in dispute, by communication dated lS‘h January, 2007 and nlrther directed under communication dated 17m May, 2007 to hold nesh auction for allotment of the said shops. 9. On a specific query put to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whether the petitioners want to implead State of Chhattisgarh as necessary party, he vehemently opposed the applicah'on (l.A.No.3), submitting that there is no need to join the State of Chhath'sgarh as necessary party, since there was no condition published in the auction notice that grant of lease would be subject to approval of the State Government. To substantiate his submissions learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited a decision of learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in the matter of Municipal Corporation, Sama Vs. Badri Prasad and others { 2001 (4) M.P.H.T. 387} 10‘ Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadingS and documents appended thereto, it is true that Clause 4 of the general terms and conditions of the auction notice dated. 8.3.2006 (Annexure P/ 1) provides that the Commissioner of the Corporation is the final authority to accept the bid of the panics and it does not pmscribe for appxoval of the State Government for allotment. Clause 4 of the general terms and conditions of the auction notice dated 8.3.2006 reads as under.— “Wma‘tmnWmWWWW m.wwmle¥mmmm" On going through the Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops by Auction (Annexuxe P/6), it is clear that Clause 13 pmvides for approval of the State Government for allotment of shops. It is specitically mentioned in Clause 13 that the approval of the State Govemment will be sought and only after approval the highest bidder would acquire the right of patta on the land. The bidder will not have any right over the shop/building if the allotment is not approved by the Government and the bidder shall be entitled for refund of the amount Without interest. No claim thereof shall be entertained. Clause 13 of the Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops by Auction (Annexure P/6) reads as under:— “Wmnnmaanmmmwnw Warm immmnmwsmmnmn 11. Thakur wmakqqammmwm In§mw§ Wwwé‘iwaaammmTWm‘kw/WW mmwwmwmmWEEWWgmm mmmwnmmWmwwm” 12. In vicw of the clear provision in Clause 13 of the Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops by Auction (Annexum P/6) it was necessay for the petitionets to impkad the State Government as a party-respondent. Even othelwise, since the allotment has not bean approved by the State Government and the respondent Corporation has acted on the dixection of the State Government no relief can be granted in favour of the pentioners without a§ording an opportunity of hearing to the State Government. The petitioners have failed to implead the State Government as necessaxy party. 13. The petitioners have not questioned the legality and valitlity of the order dated 8.6.2007, whereby the allotment of the shops by auction in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The pmcess of subsequent auction notice dated 19.7.2007 cannot he faulted with. 14. The decision in the mater of Municipal Corporation, Satna (supra) passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur is not relevant as the case is not being considered on merit. ./"/ ‘ \t 15. In view of the foregoing, both the petitions are dismissed on “ the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party ie. State o Chhattisgarh. No order as to costs. Sd/- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge e