IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21747 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 28.11.2011 Deepak Jindal ........Petitioner vs. Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court as a prospective buyer of the property of the borrower M/s. Tarun Textile which was put to sale vide public notice dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). As per the said notice, the intending buyer would require to submit earnest money of Rs.18,63,000/- by way of bank draft and offers would open on 14.01.2011 at 1.00 p.m. The borrower filed a writ petition before this Court i.e. C.W.P. No. 547 of 2011 wherein the borrower was given liberty to take the prospective buyer for permitting him to give a bid in the auction, which is fixed for 14.01.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the said order, the borrower got the certified copy and handed over the same after lunch but the respondents said that now time is over, therefore, they can not be participated in the bid. It is the case of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to purchase the property in a sum of Rs. 32.25 lacs, though the bid of Rs. 21,10,200/- CWP No. 21747 of 2011(O&M) 2 given by one Sanjiv Gupta was accepted, the highest bidder who has given bid of Rs. 21,10,200/-. It is further pointed out that said Sanjiv Gupta has filed a writ petition before this Court claiming refund of his money and the said writ petition is fixed for 11.01.2012. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that present petition is nothing but abuse of process of law and is a proxy litigation on behalf of the borrower. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 13.01.2011, the borrower was given liberty to take the prospective buyer for permitting him to give a bid in the auction. From the averments made in the writ petition itself, it is apparent that the petitioner has not participated in auction process at the given time. The petitioner has not prepared any demand draft in a sum of Rs. Rs.18,63,000/- as the earnest money in terms of the auction notice. We are of the opinion that the present writ petition is another attempt on behalf of the borrower to delay the realisation of the dues of the Bank. Consequently, we find that the present petiton is not maintainable and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited with High Court Legal Services Committee. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE