D 1 ,h R€sp€md€nt HKEH titiener Petmaner Rssoadeut p M COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR W, P. (C: N6. 4982 of 2007 Slut. Neeru Soni Versus Municipal Corporation Bhilai AND W. P. {Cl No. 4983 of 2007 Sm‘z. Vagdana Soni. Vcrsus Municipal Ccxpm‘aticn Bhilai —f& Post for order on 17August, 2007. Sd/- ‘N ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C) N0. 4982 of 2007 Petiticnar Smt. Naem Soni, Agad about 33 ycam, Wio Shxi N. K. Soni, R/o MIG {C} 166, vmshali Nagar, Bhilai, Tah. 8r, Distt. — Durg (CG) Varsus Rasfmndmu Municipal Corpcratbn Bhilai, t l §h;mugh : Commissioncr Municipal Corperation Supsla, Bhjlai, Tah. 8r. Distt. — Burg AED WP. (C) No. 4983 cf 2007 Patitisner Suit. Vandana Semi, Aged aoout 40 years, Wjo Shri S. K. $oni, R/o MIG (C) 159, VaishaE Nagar, Bhjlai, Tall. & Distt. -— Durg (CG) Respondent Municipal Corporation Bhikn', ‘l‘hrough : Oommissioncr Municipal Corporation Supela, Bhilai, Tah. 8r, Distt. — Durg Versus WRIT PETiTiaHS UKDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE CGNSTITUTION OF iiiDKA g3: Hon’blc Shn' SatishK. mihotri, J Shri V. C: Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioners‘ Shri H. BJ‘xgalwaL Senior Advocate with Shxi Sameer Behar, Advocate for the respondentS. GREER ( Passed on this 2 7 ’éay of August, 2007) 1. With the consent of the parties the matter was heard mally 2. The petitioner (Smt. Neeru Soni) €11 W.P.(C) No. 4982/ 2007 amt petitioner (Smt. Vandana Soni) in W.P,(C) No. 4982/2007 impuges auction notice dated 19.7.2007 (Annexare W5) ami iiot the cancellation mder datecl 8.6.2007 of allohnent of the /\ shop No. F/ 16 and F,’ 15, mspsctivdy, in Shsatla CGmmaCial Complex, Bhilai, District — Durg. . According to learned counsel for the petitioners earlier the respondant/ Corporation issusd a auction notice dated 8.3.2606 (Armamm P,’ 1) for auction of the shops at van‘ous commercial complexes, includi‘ag Sheetla Commercial Complex, Bhilai. The petitioners; participated in the auction proceeding and they beiiig the highest biddere ii1 the ,auctioii held on 27.3.2006, in the pi‘emisee of the {espondent/Corporation were allotted the shops No. F/ 16 and F/ 15, inspectively. The petitionera, aeoofx’lingly, depoaited the reqnired security amount and l [3rd waount 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. . The petitioners received the order dated 8.6.2007 (Annexme P,’4) in Joth the petitions that the auction for allotment of the shops in dispute, held on 27.3.20G6, has been canceded by the State Government. Therefore the petitioners were directed to make application for refund of the amount of secuxity deposit. . Thereafter, the respondent] Coxporation issued a fiesh auction notice dated 19.7.2007 (Annexure P,’ 5) for allotment of various shops, including the shops in dispute ( F/ 16 and F/ 15 at Sheetla Commercial Complex, Bhilai l, which were allotted to the petitioners, in the auction held on 27.3.2006, pursuant to the auction notice dated 8.3.2006. . Being aggrieved the petitioneis have tiled these petitions seeking a wn't/dimctisn to quash the auction natics dated 19.7.2067 {fmxicxure PIS). . Shxi V. G. Tainaskar, learned counsel appearing for the patitioner submits that 111s aarlier aactim} nofic€ dated 8.3.2005 (Annexure Pl 1) a3 W€11 as the subsequent atuction imtiw dated 19.7.2007 (Ammxum P/ 5) ckarly provides that the Cemmissioxim", Musicipal Carpmaticm, Bhihi is the fEnal authoxity to approve the offer of the hi"hest bidder wid there is no mention of seeking any apemval by the Government in the audios aetiees. The subsetiuent auction for allotment of the said shops in dispute, is not sustainable as the shops in dispute have akeady been allotted to the petitioners in the auction dated 27.3.2006 and there 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. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, with Shri Sameer Behar, 1eatned counsel, appean'ng for the responoenwvoiyoiation 1 +11“ m m f1 the an anplication (i.A.No.o, Q\ dated + 21.8.2007 for dismissing the case for non-joinder of necessary party ie. the State Government. On quety that whether the nespondentf Corporation intended to nle any reply on merit, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the lespondentj Corporation that the application. {I.A.No.3) contains the reply also and there is no necessity of tiling any return separately on merit. lt was farther submitted by leanied counsel appearing for the respondentlCotpoiation that the J ‘z State. Gavenmmnt has not approved the allatmsnt 0f shops in favour of m6 petitionsrs, entailing can0€uati011 of th€ anotmmxt. Thus, the allotmem 0f disputgd sh6ps was calmelled ami new auc'tion notice datad 19.7.2007 was issueé for s£€ 0f t11€ shops by auction. The caoceEation of the allotmeat of tho shoys was done on the diroction of the State Govemment. The CommiSsioner of the respondentfCorporation sent a letter dated 33th March, 2006 to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Urban Adminishration a11d Development Deped m1e11t for approval of the allotment of the shops, held in the auction on 27.3.2006. The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Urban Admnnstration and Development Depaxtment cancelled the allotment of the shops, including the shops in dispute, by commimteat‘ion datetl 15th Jamimy, 2007 am? fmther directed nmler communication dated 37¢ May, 2007 to hold fresh auction for allotment of the sm'd shops. On a speoitic query put to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whether the getitloners want to implead State of Cmlat‘dsgarh as necessary party, he vehemently opposetl the application (I.A.No.3}, submitting that there is no need to join the tate of Chhattisgarh as necessary party, s‘ ice there was no contlition published in the auction notice that grant of lease would be subject to approval of the State Government. To substantiate his submissions leaxned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited a decision of learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jahalpur, in the matter of éé Municipal Carporation, Satna Vs. Badri Prasad and others { 2601 (4) M.P.H.T. 387} 10. Havmg heard karma} counsal for the parti€s and peru3ing {113' plsadmgs and dscuments appended tharata, it is true that (Hause 4 of the germral tsrms amt comiitions 0f the auction notice dated 8.3.2006 {Annemue P/ 1) pmvides that the CGmmissioner Gf the Corporatisn is the fmal authority to accept the bid. of the parties ami it does not prescribe for appmval of the State Goverimient for .allotment. Chase 4 of the general terms and conditions of the auction 110 'ce dated 8.3.2006 reads as under: — “mun Wottwoethgmmmemmm WEWWWWWW” 11. On goiug through the Terms am! Conditions of Allotment of Shops by Auction (Annexme Flo), it is clear that Clause 13 provides for appmval of the State Government for allotment of shops. t is syecifically mentioned d1 Clause 13 that the approval of the State Government Will be sought and only after approval the highest bidder wonlcl acquiie the right of patta on the land. The bidder will not have any right over the shop/building if the aliotment is not approved by the Government and the bidder shall be entitled for refund of the amount Without interest. No claim thereof shail he entei‘tained. Clanse 13 of t 1e Terms and Conditions of Allotment of Shops by Auction {Armature Pfé) reads as under:- “Wmmmnadmmwwoemjn mattrynnttt iehrrjnmaanmssmmahme wm$mmmmmm ‘mwwg Wma§§$mmmmm@§mfmm mWWH§WWWWW$WWWW mmmawmémWmmwFgW ” 12. In View cf {ha cléar pmvisioa in Clausa 13 of the Tsmm aad Coric’litians 0f Allatment Gf Shops by Auction {Annexure P/6) it was newssary for the peiitioimrs to hnplead the State Government as a pax1y-r65pondent. Even othelwisa, mince the aBotmezlt has not bee.-31 approval by tho State G—ovcrnmom aml 1m {Espondeut Corporation has acted 0a tho dimciion of the tam Governmoat, no reliof C311 b6 grantod in favour of the petitioners without affoxding all opportimity of hearing to the State Govemmeat. The petitioners h ve {@ed to imnleaé the State Government 3S necess y party. 13. The petitioners have not questioned the legality and vahdity of the order dated 8.6.2007, whereby the aEotment of the shops hy auction in favour of the petitioners has been o$1ceileéh The pmees‘s of subsequent auction notice dated 19.7.2007 cannot 4- he faulted with. 14. The decision in the mater of Municipal Comoration, Satna (supra) passed by leaxned Singie Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jaba1pur is not televant as the case is not being considered on merit. 15. In View of the foregoing, both the petitions are dismissed on the ground of non—joinder of the necessaxy party i.e. State of Chhattisgarh. No order as to costsn Sd/— ' Satish K. Agnihotri Thakur $1 Judge