IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.555 of 2008 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 3108/2007) Deepak Kumar son of Sri Ramjee Prasad, resident of Mithila Colony, Nasriganj, P.S.Danapur, District Patna. Writ petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., having its registered office at Indira Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ramcharitra Singh Path, Boring Canal Road, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., having its registered office at Indira Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ramcharitra Singh Path, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 3. Deputy Registrar(R) Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., having its registered office at Indira Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ramcharitra Singh Path, Boring Canal Road, Patna. Respondents-Respondents ---------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate Ms. Renu Jha, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate ------------------------------------ 06 09.12.2011 I.A. No.3529 of 2011 By filing of the aforesaid I.A. the intervener Bank has sought to come on record as party respondents on the ground that they have financed a huge amount to M/s. Ambuja Electro Casting Pvt. Ltd., a company, now purchased in auction by the appellant. But, however, it appears that it is an internal dispute between the appellant (purchaser) and the Bank and, therefore, the intervener has no locus to intervene in this matter. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed. 2 The present L.P.A. has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CW JC No. 3108 of 2007 rejecting the writ petition. The appellant who is the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the Board of Directors of the Respondent Corporation in not approving the sale of the sick unit which the appellant has purchased being the highest bidder in pursuance of an advertisement dated 5.12.2004 published in daily Hindi newspaper ‘Hindustan’. The appellant has made an offer to purchase the unit and the sale was finalized by the BICICO in favour of the appellant being the highest bidder for a total consideration of a sum of Rs. 34.50 lakhs. As the Corporation has felt it necessary to assess the valuation of the assets by Government approved valuer and the valuation has been assessed and approved at Rs.49.03 lakhs. As the appellant has already deposited the auction amount of Rs.34.50 lakhs and according to him he has also paid the balance amount of Rs. 18.00 lakhs on 15.2.2005, the possession of the unit was handed over to him on 19.2.2005. However, he has aggrieved by the action of Corporation in not approving the said sale and not executing the sale deed, even though he deposited the balance amount of Rs.14.41 lakhs by way of three Cheques, but the Board of Directors of BICICO in its meeting held on 3 12.12.2006 has resolved that a fresh valuation be made and the assets of the Unit be re-advertised for sale. The same was communicated to the appellant through letter dated 22.1.2007 by the BICICO informing the view of the Board of Directors to go for a fresh auction and requested to handover the possession of the assets back to the BICICO. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties refused to entertain the writ petition observing that it is an internal dispute between the parties. Being aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the appellant has already deposited the auction amount way back in the year 2006 and thereafter the Board of Directors of BICICO have decided to have a fresh valuation of the assets of the unit by an approved Government valuer and the approved value was fixed at Rs.49.03 lakhs Accordingly, the appellants had paid the balance amount of Rs.14.41 lakhs by three Cheques, but however, the Board of Directors, for reasons best known to them, have resolved to go for a fresh valuation of the assets of the unit and re-advertise the unit for sale in its meeting dated 5.9.2005. The learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the Unit has been put for sale by advertisement dated 5.12. 2004 and the appellant being the highest bidder having complied with 4 the terms and conditions of auction sale subsequently also deposited the amount approved by the Government valuer, and therefore, the right of the appellant cannot be taken away by BICICO by putting the unit again on auction sale. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has submitted that it is evident from the advertisement as also from the offer of acceptance dated 10.2.2005 that the petitioner was fully made aware with regard to acceptance of the offer which was subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. He has further stated that once the offer of the appellant rejected by the Board of Directors of BICICO it was open for them to take further steps for sale of the unit through re-advertisement, even though efforts have been made to hand over possession of the unit to the appellants. The counsel for the BICICO has also relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 122 [Kerala State Financial Corporation vs Vincent Paul & Another] and tried to support his contention, that the highest bidder in a public auction cannot have any right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the auction sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the bidders. From the materials available on record we could find that initially the auction amount of Rs. 34.50 lakhs has been 5 deposited by the auction purchaser, when the Board of Directors of BICICO had taken a decision to re-assess the value of the assets of the Unit in question by a Government approved valuer and the valuation has been assessed to the tune of Rs.49.11 lakhs and the appellant had deposited the balance amount by three Cheques. We have to observe with reference to the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Corporation that there is no material placed before us to show that the appellant has succeeded in the auction sale in collusion with co-bidders. It is also to be observed that the unit has been notified for sale way back on 5.12.2004 and the Board of Directors has resolved in its meeting dated 12.12.2006 not to accept the sale and the same was communicated to the appellant only on 22.1.2007, after a lapse of three years, when the unit has already been handed over to the appellant on 19.2.2005. In absence of any materials placed by the BICICO to show that the appellant in collusion with co-bidders has succeeded in taking possession of the unit in question being the highest bidder, we are unable to agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the BICICO. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also stated that the appellant has invested huge amount over the unit and 6 at this juncture he cannot be thrown away in absence of any materials to show that the bidders in collusion of co-bidders have facilitated the appellant to become the highest bidder. It cannot be said that non-approval of such auction sale by the Board of Directors of the Corporation did not stand in the way of the purchaser to claim the unit for which he has already deposited the bid amount as also the subsequently enhanced value as approved by the Government valuer. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the BICICO should ratify receipt of the balance amount of Rs.14.41 lakhs which has been paid by the appellant by three Cheques and also to ratify the sale in accordance with law. With the above observation the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the L.P.A. is allowed. Chandran (T.Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)