CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 12 ,2011 Smt.Prem Lata & another .....Petitioners VERSUS Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.481 of 2011 (Smt.Prem Lata & another Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh and others and 499 of 2011 (P.K.Bansal Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh) . Haryana Financial Corporation has issued a public notice in “The Tribune” for putting Cold-storage, Unit by the name of M/s. Shankar Lal & Sons at Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra on sale through public auction. Smt.Prem Lata and Vijay Singh Sharma have filed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: this writ petition for quashing the auction notice of this property and for further direction to the respondents to accept the bid of `52 lacs already given by the petitioners. M/s Shankar Lal and Sons had raised a loan of `30 lacs from Haryana Financial Corporation and had executed a mortgage deed of the property in favour of the Corporation. They could not repay the loan amount, whereas total amount of `58 lacs towards principal was payable till June, 2008 and a sum of `12 lacs was outstanding as a remaining loan liability. The premises were locked by the Corporation on 21.8.2008. The Haryana Financial Corporation started the process of public auction to realise the outstanding loan amount. Maximum bid, which was given by the petitioners, was for `37 lacs. This did not find favour with the Corporation. On the asking of partners of the firm, the petitioners gave a bid of `40 lacs on 4.1.2010 and deposited a sum of `4 lacs, being 10% of the bid amount. As per the petitioners, the partners have given consent, but without any cogent reason, the bid was not accepted and the petitioners were asked to increase the bid amount to `46 lacs, which, the petitioners complied. Despite this, the sale was not confirmed in favour of the petitioners and now the property is being put to sale by auction through notice dated 5.7.2010, even though the petitioners had enhanced the bid to `52 lacs. In fact, respondents No.4 and 5 had filed CWP No.15375 of 2010 asking for change of venue for auction by pleading that the adequate bid would not be forthcoming in case the auction is held at CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: Chandigarh. Rather true picture would reveal from a second writ petition filed to challenge the same auction by one P.K.Bansal, who claims to have given a bid of `52.10 lacs for the same property. This was when the petitioners had increased the bid to `52 lacs, which was statedly acceptable to respondent Nos.4 and 5. This Court while disposing of CWP No.15375 of 2010 has not only accepted the prayer of M/s.Shankar Lal and Sons to change the venue of auction, but has accepted the proposal of counsel appearing for the Corporation for holding a fresh auction of the Unit by re-advertising the sale of the Unit. It was pointed out before the court that the maximum offer during earlier auction was `52.10 lacs, which was given by the petitioner, who has filed CWP No.499 of 2011, listed today. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is also that the sale of the property by auction be confirmed in his favour as he has already given the maximum bid of `52.10 lacs. The petitioners are misconceived in making the prayer in their respective writ petitions and are making submissions by ignoring the earlier order passed by this court in CWP No.15375 of 2010, where directions have been issued for putting the property to re-auction by issuing fresh advertisement and by fixing minimum auction price of the property to be `52.10 lacs. This was the maximum offer given by petitioner P.K.Bansal. The petitioners, thus, cannot be heard to complain against auction by filing separate writ petitions. The petitioners in both the petitions cannot wish away the order passed in CWP No.15375 of 2010, which they have not challenged in any manner. They cannot do so through separate writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: petitions. The Corporation is well within its right to re-auction the property for which directions have already been issued by this court and no order contrary thereto now can be passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had participated in the earlier auction and had given their bids which were not accepted or confirmed. A bid, which is not accepted and is not confirmed, can not result in any concluded or binding contract, which can be enforced. That being the position, the Financial Corporation is well within its right and jurisdiction to put the property to re-auction, specially so when this court has also issued direction in this regard while disposing of CWP No.15375 of 2010. Needless to observe that the petitioners will be at liberty to participate in the fresh auction and bid for the property, if they so desire. There is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are dismissed with this common order. January 12 ,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE