1 19 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3383/2006. Bali Mohammad Vs. State Date of Order :: 11th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sudhir Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the respondent No. 2. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition was filed with the submissions that in the auction proceedings as conducted by the respondent No. 2 Municipal Board, Pilibanga on 17.11.2005 the petitioner, after depositing earnest money of Rs. 10,000/-, put his bid for Plot No. 175 measuring 60' x 90' at Rs. 1,81,000/-. The petitioner stated the grievance in the manner that his bid of Rs. 1,81,000/- was found to be the highest one and he was assured to be allotted the said plot but was surprised to know that his bid was cancelled. According to the petitioner, even as per the DLC, the rate for the area in question was about Rs. 51/- per square yard and viewed in that light, his bid was substantially above the DLC rates. In this writ petition, show cause notices were issued on 10.07.2006 and status quo was directed to be maintained, particularly when the petitioner submitted that the respondents intended to re-auction the plot in question. An application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India came to be 2 moved by the contesting respondent; and, on 14.03.2007, while considering the said application, this Court noticed the submission as made on behalf of the petitioner that he was prepared to give almost double the amount payable. This Court observed that in case such offer was made, the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner. It has been pointed out during the course of submissions that the interim order as passed in this writ petition was vacated by the Hon'ble Division Bench in SAW No. 302/2007 on 01.02.2008. The matter was thereafter considered in this writ petition on 19.03.2008 and this Court expressed prima facie opinion that probably the plot in question could fetch higher price and, therefore, directed by interim order that the Municipal Board, Pilibanga shall put the plot in question to re-auction to ascertain the fair market price with the rider that such auction proceedings shall not be finalised without leave of the Court; and the respondent Municipal Board was granted 4 weeks’ time for the purpose. An application (IA No. 5002/2008) came to be moved by the respondent on 25.04.2008 praying for further 4 weeks’ time with the submissions that the auction notices had been issued and the process has commenced but for its completion some more time would be required. While the said application 3 remained pending, another application (IA No. 5853/2008) came to be moved on behalf of the respondent with the submissions that in the auction proceedings conducted on 06.05.2008, bids have been received and therefrom it is apparent that the plot in question could fetch a bid of Rs.12.80 lacs (Annex.R-2/6). Today, when asked for the response of the petitioner on the submissions as made on behalf of the respondent Municipal Board, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly submitted that the bid as received by the respondent being much too beyond and above his bid, the petitioner cannot possibly press for grant of relief in this case now. From the submissions as placed on record by the respondent, it is but apparent that the earlier action of cancelling the bid of the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable one or based on irrelevant considerations. The bids that have now been offered clearly belie the claim of the petitioner of his bid having been adequate. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there appears no reason to continue with this writ petition any further. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The applications (IA Nos. 5002/2008 and 5853/2008) also stand disposed of. No costs. Mohan/ (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.