Civil Revision No.5985 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5985 of 2008 Date of decision : 20.1.2008 Sukhdev Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jayender S.Chandail, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner before this Court was concededly highest bidder at the impugned auction and he had also deposited 25% as earnest amount but the bid could not mature for want of approval by the competent authority/Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned auction having been held in the presence of a local Officer, under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, the auction proceeding had to be compulsively confirmed. Reliance, in the context, is also placed upon the fact that the Deputy Commissioner recommended the acceptance of the bid. The plea raised thereby is that it is the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority to approve the auction. In support of the view aforementioned, learned counsel relies upon the below quoted condition no.5 of the terms Civil Revision No.5985 of 2008 -2- **** and conditions governing the auction:- “Competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Hisar will be entitled to cancel the auction on the spot or at the later stage also and also make any change in the auction, fully or part thereof without assigning any reason.” The plea on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be negatived. There is nothing on record, at all, to indicate that the Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority to approve the auction/bid. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the terms and conditions governing the auction, that there is nothing therein from which it could be culled out that it was the Deputy Commissioner concerned who was the competent authority to approve the auction. In that context, I draw sustenance from clause 3 of the terms and conditions which reads as under:- “The successful bidder will be required to deposit 25% of the auction money at spot along with advance already deposited by him. The remaining amount 75% will be deposited on receipt of sanction from the competent authority.” It would be evident from a perusal of clause 3 aforementioned that the balance 75% of the bid amount was to be deposited on receipt of sanction letter from the competent authority. Under Clause 5, the expression used is competent authority/Deputy Commissioner; while it only competent authority which finds mention under Clause 3. Even otherwise, the Deputy Commissioner had concededly recommended the acceptance of the bid to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh. If the Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority in the relevant behalf, there was no occasion for him to forward the bid of the petitioner to the Financial Civil Revision No.5985 of 2008 -3- **** Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh. for its acceptance. Learned State counsel has placed on record photocopy of letter dated 10.11.2004 which the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Haryana had addressed to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh. In that letter, the Engineer-in-Chief recorded that the auction of the land under reference had been carried out by the Naib Tehsildar as a representative of the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad, and the latter had signed the bid document. The officer recommended that “such kind of activities will not be repeated in future.” On that premise, the officer requested the Government to reconsider its decision to reauction the land. It is apparent from the above discussion, the competent authority i.e. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh declined to accept the bid as it had not been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner, faced with the predicament of having to explain the above facts, points out that the proposed re- auction of the property would bring in 3rd party interest which would complicate the litigation in the Court of law. He further argues that it will take long before the suit is disposed of and it would cause avoidable economic harassment to the petitioner who had already deposited a huge sum as the earnest amount. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. However, it is ordered that the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, while conducting the auction shall document an announcement that the re- auction shall be subject to result of the litigation pending in the Civil Court. Civil Revision No.5985 of 2008 -4- **** Further, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself within three months from the next date of hearing. This Court is persuaded to grant that order in view of the fact that it is common ground that there is hardly any controversy on facts and adjudication of the controversy would basically turn upon the interpretation of the rule under reference. January 20, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE