IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 27871 of 2008 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Smt. T.V.V. Lakshmi W/o. T.V.V. Satyanarayana Office at 9-33/11, Lingala Complex , Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Authorized Officer-Cum-Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Dilsukhnagar Branch Rajadhani Theater Complex, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in publishing the Auction Notice 22-11-08 with regard to the plots in Sy.No. 29, 29/A , 33 /LU, 33/LOO , 36 and 36/A/A1 situated at Shiridi Sai Nagar known as Green Star Layout, Toopranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SURESH The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.27871 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in publishing the auction notice with regard to the plots in Survey Nos.29, 29/A, 33, 33/EE, 33/LU, 33/LOO, 36 and 36/A/A1, situated at Shiridi Sai Nagar known as Green Star Layout, Toopranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier the respondent issued a public auction notice and called for Tenders for sale of the 85 plots in the above survey numbers. The petitioner while submitting its tender, had deposited Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.5.70,000/-. In the auction conducted by the respondent, the petitioner was a successful bidder and to that effect the respondent bank issued a letter. In the said letter, it was also mentioned about the pendency of writ petition No.10733 of 2007 before this court. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay any amount to the respondent towards auction purchase in view of the pendency of the writ petition. The respondent issued a letter dated 4.9.2008 to the petitioner cancelling the auction sale in its favour and also forfeited its EMD amount. In the meanwhile, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner approached the respondent and requested to furnish the copy of the order in the writ petition. While so, the respondent published an auction notice on 22.11.2008 for sale of the plots in the above survey numbers by fixing the sale auction on 22.12.2008. The contention of the petitioner is that when the auction purchase is pending, the respondent cannot issue again auction sale notice for the self same property. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner having agreed to pay the bid amount, failed to pay the same. It is true that W.P.No.10733 of 2007 was pending and it was dismissed on 27.11.2007. On 01.06.2008, a letter was received from the petitioner stating that it would pay Rs.1,35,00,000/- on that day and Rs.1,40,00,000/- by 15.6.2008 and the balance 50% before the end of June,30th. It was further stated that in case if they failed to pay the above mentioned amount by the due dates, the paid amount shall be forfeited. A cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank dated 2.6.2008 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- was given in favour of the respondent but the same was bounced. The respondent issued a letter to the petitioner to make the entire amount on or before 15.7.2008, failing which the tender confirmed in its favour stands cancelled. On 3.7.2008, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent promising to pay 15% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.85,00,000/- on or before 15.7.2008 and the balance amount would be paid on or before 31.7.2008. The petitioner agreed that if the total amount was not paid within the stipulated time, the E.M.D. could be forfeited. However, the petitioner failed the pay the amount. On 4.9.2008, the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner canceling the tender and the EMD amount was forfeited. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the auction sale notice dated 22.11.2008 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioner being a successful bidder in the auction sale, failed to pay the bid amount in spite of giving ample opportunity. Ultimately, the respondent cancelled the auction sale dated 01.06.2007 and has issued a fresh auction notice on 22.11.2008 for sale of the plots. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned sale notice so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. But however, in the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent for return of the E.M.D. and on such representation being made, the respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 29-06-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}