HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.A. No.534/2011 DB: HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J & HONSLE SHRi RADKE SHYAM SHARR4A. J. Smt. Amrika Bai Sahu w/o Shri Krishna Kumar Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Janakpur Road, Ward No.11, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bitaspur (CG) Jyoti Mishra, D/o Radhelal Mishra, aged about 40 years, R/o Pathakpara, Ward No.7, Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (CG) Vikas Pandey, s/o B.R.Pandey, aged about 35 years, R/o Block Cotony, Ward No.2, Takhatpur, District Biiaspur (CG) Versus ^OM-APPLiCANTS 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of 'Jrban Administration and Development, ManSraiaya, DKS Bh3<van, Raipur (CG) Director, Urban, Administration and Develcpmant, Raipur, Stafs of Chhattjsgarh, Raipur (CG) Coilector, Bilaspur, District Bfiaspur ;CG) Nagar Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Biiaspur (CG), Through its Chief Municipal Officer. WANo. 534/2011 5. Presldent, Nagar Panehayat, Takhatpur, Distrtet Biiaspur (CG) 6 Chief Municipal Otficer, Nagar Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) 7 Alok Gupta, S/o Shri Borilal Gupta, Aged about 33 years, Occupation Business, R/o Janakpur Road, Ward No.13, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) 8 Sadhuram Paut, s/o Shri Loknath, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o village Padariya, Tahsii Takhatpur, District Bitespur (CG) WRIT APEPAL UNDER SECTION (21 OF THE CHHATTISGARH KSGH CCURT fAPPEAL TO DSV1SION BENCH) ACT^OOS Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Government Advocate for the State/ respondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for respondents 4 to 6. ORAL ORDER (01.12.2011) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunll Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on admission. Being aggrieved with the order dated 2"° August, 2011, passed in VV.P.(C.) No.5536/2009, the appellants have flled this appeal. Sl, WANo.534/2011 By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by respondents 7 and 8 hereln, has been allowed by the writ Court and the entire auction proceedings dated 10.7.2009 and 4.8.2009 relating to auction of the shops by Nagar Panchayat, Takhatpur, have been quashed. A liberty has also been granted to the Nagar Panchayat to proceed for re-auction of the shops for allotment In accordance with law, in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (C.G.) Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides that "when a transfer is to be made by public auction or by inviting offers, the time, the date, the place and the conditions of the auction or offer shail, not less than 15 days prior to the date of auction or last date for the receipt of offers, be advertised in one or more local news-papers and shall be wldely made known in the manner as determined by the counsel". The writ Court found that there was no publlcation in the newspaper for auction dated 4.8.2009, which was re-scheduled after 10.7.2009. Thus, there was contravention of the provisions of RuSe 4 of the Rules, 1996. The writ Court, therefore,-atlowed the writ petition by passing the above order. Shri Awadh Tripathi submlts that the publication was made in daily newspapers for auction fixed on 10.7.2009. On that date, only 3 shopscould be auctioned. After the said date, a new date of auction was fixed on 4.8.2009, on which, 20 shops were auctioned and allotted to different persons. He also doesnot dispute that for auction of 4.8.2009, no publication was made through the newspapers, as is provided in Rule 4 of Rules, 1996. His submission is that Nagar Panchayat had made publication by beating of drums; therefore, there was sufficient comptiance of rv ^z- WANo.534/2011 Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996. The writ Court erred in law in quashing the entlre auction on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 4. The contention of Shri Awadh Tripathi, cannot be accepted on the face of the provisions of Rule, 4, which clearly provides that the advertisement shall be in one or more local newspapers and shall be widely made known in the manner as determined by the counsel. The word used as "and" between the manner or publication by newspapers and other manner, clearly indicates that it was not sufficient to make a publication only by beating of drums and it should have been in addition to the publication through a newspaper, which Is found mandatory in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ,——. _— Sd/- ; Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge ^ >.