Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2011 Date of Decision:27.05.2011 Ms.Sita Verma ......Petitioner Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Manish Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present writ petition and emitting from the record, is that Mr.G.K.Rai, the then District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, appointed petitioner-Ms.Sita Verma, as Court Auctioneer, for a period of five years, by way of order dated 31.10.2007(Annexure P-1). Complainant-Raj Kumar Kareer sent a complaint(Annexure P-2) to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, levelling very serious and grave allegations of cheating against her(petitioner). The complaint was inquired into by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Inquiry Officer, Ludhiana. The petitioner was stated to have submitted her written reply/objections(Annexure P-4) in this regard. 2. The Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Inquiry Officer submitted his report(Annexure P-3) to the District & Sessions Judge, against the petitioner, who referred the matter to this Court. The matter was examined vide report(Annexure P-7) and it was decided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court, to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Court Auctioneer, by virtue of order dated 19.04.2011(Annexure P-6). Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2011 2 3. In pursuance of order(Annexure P-6), the District & Sessions Judge, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Court Auctioneer, by means of impugned order dated 02.05.2011(Annexure P-5). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, no adequate opportunity of hearing and to produce the evidence was provided to the petitioner, so, the impugned order(Annexure P-5) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 7. As is evident from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Court Auctioneer on 31.10.2007, in exercise of powers, as per provisions of Sub- Rule(11) of Rule 20 of Chapter 12-L High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I and in pursuance of the authorization by this Court, by the District & Sessions Judge. Complainant-Raj Kumar Kareer sent a complaint dated 05.07.2009(Annexure P-2) to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, levelling very serious allegations of cheating and illegal gratification against her(petitioner). Ultimately, the complaint was assigned to the Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Inquiry Officer and the petitioner submitted her written reply/objections(Annexure P-4), which were duly considered by him. 8. After considering the entire material/evidence placed on record, the Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Inquiry Officer, submitted his report dated 12.11.2010(Annexure P-3) to the District & Sessions Judge, against the petitioner, which in substance is, as under:- “Now the main relief sought by the complainant Raj Kumar Karir, Advocate, is that Sita Verma had not returned the balance amount out of Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2011 3 Rs.3,00,000/- to them. But Raj Kumar Karir is practicing as an Advocate at District Courts, Ludhaina. He might have studied Code of Civil Procedure while doing graduation in law. He might be knowing that the auction is to take place at the spot. The higher bidder is declared as successful in the public auction. He had also knowledge that if there is any criminal conspiracy with the court auctioneer to the effect that the property is to be sold at very nominal price, then the same amounts to cheating not only with the JD whose interest the court auctioneer is bound to protect by selling the property at highest rate, but also cheating with the court which has reposed great confidence in the court auctioneer to the effect that the property will be sold at highest rate at the spot so that the JD may not suffer any loss in court proceedings. In the present case, the three storeyed constructed house on plot measuring 126 sq. yards situated in Ludhiana, was sold at throw away price of Rs.2,00,000/- only. The court had not fixed any reserve price for selling this house. Therefore, it was the duty of auction purchaser to seek report from the collector regarding the latest market value of the house and then to fix that existing market value as reserve price and then to conduct auction so that no wrongful loss may be caused to the JD and no wrongful loss may be caused to any bidder in the auction. Therefore, these provisions of law were ignored. In the present case, as per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant himself had participated in the process leading to cheating, he is equally responsible for the same. In the present case, as per allegations made in the complaint, the complainant connived with Sita Devi Verma, Court Auctioneer for sale of this house in favour of his father on throw away price in execution proceedings. The complainant also involved his brother Anil Kumar, father Sham Lal in this illegal act, Sukhdev Singh son of Rur Singh is the family friend of complainant. Other persons who are shown to have taken part in the execution proceedings were also supplied by the complainant in order to make the auction proceedings natural. So far as the recovery of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Sita Devi Verma is concerned, this was an illegal agreement. The consideration of this agreement was also illegal. The complainant himself was party to this illegal act, therefore, he cannot blame Sita Devi Verma, Court Auctioneer, because both of them acted in connivance with each other. The father of the complainant has already received Rs.2,10,000/- from the court instead of Rs.2,00,000/-. The court auctioneer also received the amount of Rs.4100/- as auction fee in this execution.” Civil Writ Petition No.9650 of 2011 4 9. Meaning thereby, very serious allegations of cheating and illegal gratification etc. alleged against the petitioner in the complaint(Annexure P-2) stand proved through the medium of report dated 12.11.2010(Annexure P-3). As, the Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Inquiry Officer has considered the detailed reply/objections(Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner, therefore, the contrary argument of the learned counsel that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner, “stricto sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present of circumstances. The Court Auctioneer is supposed to be a friend of the Court and expected to conduct the proceedings in a very fair and diligent manner and in accordance with law, but the petitioner has omitted to perform her pious duty in this relevant connection. 10. Taking cognizance of the inquiry report(Annexure P-3) and the entire material brought on record, to me, since, there was no other option before the District & Sessions Judge, but to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Court Auctioneer, so, the impugned order dated 02.05.2011(Annexure P-5) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. May 27, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE