IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9456 of 2007 Date of Decision:05.02.2008. Nand Gopal ...... Petitioner through Mr.Ravi Sharma, Advocate. versus State of Haryana and others ........ Respondents through Mr.Rameshwar Malik,Additional Advocate General,Haryana and Mr.R.S.Sihag, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijender Jain, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Judge. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Vijender Jain, Chief Justice There is no merit in this petition. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the highest bidder and he ought to have been given the property, is not based on the fact as the bid-offer given by him was not accepted by the respondents. The counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the main borrower who had borrowed the amount entered into one time settlement with the respondents and after settlement his total liability in regard to loan was settled at Rs.1,23,08,827/-, out of which, he had paid a sum of C.W.P.No.9456 of 2007 --2-- Rs.15 lacs in June 2007 in addition to the amount of Rs.14.90 lacs already paid by him, meaning thereby that the main borrower had paid an amount of Rs.29.90 lacs and further the respondent-Corporation vide its letter dated 07.06.2007 allowed the borrower to deposit the balance one time settlement amount by December 2007 and that the main borrower gave two post dated cheques of Rs.50 lacs each payable by 24.12.2007 and 31.12.2007. He further states that apart from the aforesaid amounts, Rs.5 lacs more has been received by the respondent on 01.02.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we are of the considered view that when a bid offered by someone in an auction is not accepted by the competent authority, then no right is created in favour of the bidder. In this case, realising that the amount of recovery was more than Rs.1.23 crores, the respondent- Corporation in its wisdom, has pursued the matter with the original borrower who entered into one time settlement and is making payments of the amount borrowed by him. Since the bid was not accepted no right was created in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that he being the highest bidder is entitled to get his maximum bid accepted and that the property be sold to him as per the auction. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE February 05, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE