$ \m\e% (Single Bengh; Hcn’ble Mn Justice Dhirgndm Mishm) W.F.(C) No.1342i266§ (PeT'rrion U/A 226 of fhe Consfi‘ru‘rion of India) PETITIONER Sanfosh Agar-wal, S/o La‘re Shri Radhey bhyam Agmwai, Aged abou‘r 33 years, E/o D DCxLCu' .. .. iV\GnulM, An L‘II- 11-; NAIQHUru, Lq‘.‘ TgLal lun§ii ll- hufgnvra -L...‘ Disfr‘ic'i' Korba (66.) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Stare of Chha’rfisgarh, Through: The becre‘rary, Nagarlya AdmnnIsTr-anon 2. Nagar Panchaya'r .Knfghom, Through: Chief Municipai Officer, Nagar Panchaya? Kn‘fghora, Disfricf Korbu (CG) 3. The President Nagar Panchaycx‘r Kafg'nora, Disfricf Korba (C6) 4. Ashish AgarwaL S/c Premlnl Agmwal, Aged about 21 years; R/o Pyare €hawL. Tilak Nagar, Kafghora Disfric‘r Korba we.) 5. Israr Husain; 5/0 $hri Saiyad Snyyab Husain, Aged abouT 3e years, R/o Near Puruni Bus+i, Kn+ghora Dis‘rricf Kcrba (C.G.) Present: Mr. Ashok Dubey & Mr. Vikash ?c1ndey, Advocm‘es for rhe pefitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi. Panel Lawyer for The Sm‘re. Mr. Sumesh EaJaJ, Advocai’e for responden‘r No.2 & 6. .wne kl-..- £__ im- respahuem man a u uespi 1e service a. n6 . ice. .l e. A! A y R .l .L .E a. Oral Order (ca. 10.20091 of-The parj'ies 1. Wifh 1'he consen‘l' 2. Grievance of fhe pefi+ioner is ‘rhaf respondenf Nagar Panchayaf Kafghora published adver‘i'isemen'r for auci'ion of i'i's shops si‘rua‘red a‘l’ New Bus S‘rand, Ka‘rghora. however. ihe said auc‘fion was posiponed for 4.2.2009. On 4.9.2009 The auc‘i’ion of Shop Nos.11 6: 13 was held and shop No.11 was noted down .for Rs.9,09,000/- in favour of Shri Pyarelal Agarwal and Shop No.13 was auciioped in favour of Shri Ashish Agarwal a'i' R320 Lac. However; a dispute arose during The auci'ion proceedings and 'ihe Nagar Panchaya'i' cancelled The auction of Shop Nos. 11 di 13 and wifhouf foliowing The legal procedure prescribed in This regard, fresh / l l E[ é? auc‘rion of Shop Nos. 11 (Kg 13 was held on The same day in which Shop No.11 was auctioned a‘r Rs.7.27..000/- 1'0 Ashish Agarwn! and Shop No.13 was aucfioned To one Ismr' Hussein for Rs.7;60,_OOO/-. 3. ”‘12 feSDOnderl' r NGOGI" .J Panchayal in “S r‘eDlVI r has SUbmiHed ”‘VGI ”’16 De'ilionel' has no l0CUS S1afldi '0 ”13 ”lis DZHHOH GS he did n0l r r par‘ricipa‘re in The aucfion for Sholr; No.13 and he was no‘r The highesf bidder in The firsf aucfion for Shoo No.11. The oe‘rifioner did n01“ par‘l’icipa‘l‘e in The second round of aucfion also. The peTiTioner has al‘rerna'rive remedy of anneal rl' under 5ecfion 302 of The CG. Municipalifies Ac‘l', 1961. The auci'ion was canceiled in The firs? round in exercise of righi's of Nagar Panchaya‘r under The no‘rice invi'ring auci'ion as the parficipanfs had sfar‘i‘ed quarreliing and raising dispu'res during first round of aucfion. In fhe second round of auci'ion The geTiTioner Was Di'esen' bl.” he did “0l DGI'HCIDQ'e in ”l8 QUCHOH. Ii has been r r r furTher sTaTed ThaT The respondenT PanchayaT is sTiH ready and wiiiing To sell 5hops No.11 41. 13 To The peTiTioner as per offer received in The firsT round i.e. Rs.9i01IOOO/- & Rs.20100,000/- respecTivelyi if so ordered: 4. On The lasT daTe of hearing i.e. 23.9.2009, The peTiTioner was direcTed To file affidaviT wiTh regard To his readiness and willingness To ourchase r The shons r in auesTion 'I as oer r highesT offer made in The firsT aucTion. In comoliance of The order daTed 23.9.2009 The oeTiTioner has filed affidaviT sTaTiryThereinlThaT due To financial consTrainTs he is noT in a posiTion To purchase Shop No.11 aT Rs..9,.01,000/-,. whereas; Shoo No.13 has alreadv been handed over To one Israr Hussain. 5. Learned counsel for The oeTiTioner submiTs ThaT second aucTion was I" conducTed wiThouT followina The relevanT orocedure orescribed in This J r r reoard under The rules and reoulaTions. AfTer cancelina The firsT aucTion; The respondenT-Nagar PanchayaT was obliged To re-adverTise by giving a noTice of aT leasT 15 days Through publicaTion To public aT large and Thereforei subsequenT aucTion in favour of re'spondenT No.4 &_ 5 is illeaal and arbiTrarv. 6. On The ofher hand, Mr. Sumesh Bavia‘j, learned counsel for- fhe respondenf Nagar Panchaya‘l' submi‘l's Tha‘r The shops were subsequenfiy auctioned as a quarrel and dispu're ensued be‘rween The aucfion purchaser's during firs? round of aucfion and i‘r was na‘r passible 1‘0 finalize fhe aucTion proceeding. Respondent Nagar Panchayaf would readily accep‘r The highes‘l' offer of The firsf round of auction if The geTH-ioner is prepared To purchase fhese shogs a? The auc‘l'ion rate in The firsT round. The raTes received by The Nagar PanchayaT in The second round is compeTiTive as oTher shops aucTioned by Nagar PanchayaT feTched almosT similar or less price Than whaT was received by Nagar PanchayaT in The second round. Since The peTiTioner did noT parTicipaTe in The aucTion and he is also noT ready To offer The raTes of firsT aucTion; he has no locus sTandi To file This PeTiTion. 7. Normally in The maTTers of aucTion by auTonomous body iT is prerogaTive of The Nagar PanchayaT To eiTher accepT or rejecT all or any offer received during aucTion proceedings. In The insTanT case; noTices were issued considering The facT ThaT highesT offer received in The firsT round was cancelled and subsequenTly The shops were sold in The subsequenT aucTion aT lesser raTes. As is evidenT {ram The earlier proceedings; The peTiTioner was given opTion To purchase The dispuTed shops aT The raTe which was received in The firsT aucTion; however; he has expressed his inabiliTy. In The aforesaid circumsTances; I am of The opinion ThaT no iry-erference is called for any furTher in The maTTer. 8. Accordingly, The wriT peTiTion is wiThouT any subsTance, The same deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed aT The admission sTage iTself. No order as To cosTs. i Slit Dhirendra Mishra Judge ' /