C.W.P. No.21020 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21020 of 2011 Date of Decision.14.11.2011 Jiwan Lal son of Bhagwan Dass .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. It is admitted that the petitioner, who had bid at the auction did not pay the auction money within the stipulated time. The petitioner states that he is prepared to make the payment and his case should still be considered in the light of observations made by Executive Engineer. There had been an intervention through an order of this Court in C.W.P. No.404 of 2011 when this Court directed that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and it was specifically observed that it was being done without going into the merits of the case. The petitioner cannot place any reliance on the observation to make it appear as though that it was favourably considered by this Court. 2. While rejecting the petitioner's plea for conclusion of the sale by his offer to pay the balance of amount with interest, the Superintendent Engineer has recorded in the impugned order that some C.W.P. No.21020 of 2011 -2- irrigation officials themselves have bought a few of the rest houses in the names of their relatives or friends and later sold a majority of the trees planted there, besides the construction material and debris. If there had been a breach of terms of the auction and the petitioner has not been able to obtain a favourable consideration, it is not possible for this Court to extend any helping hand for the petitioner. A contract cannot be drawn up by the Court for the benefit of the petitioner, when the rights of parties stood determined under the terms of contract drawn up at the auction. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 14, 2011 Pankaj*