CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16206 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 23, 2009 Sukhbir Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners participated in auction held on 20.1.2004 and being the biggest bidders, had deposited 25% of the bid amount. The auction, however, was not confirmed in their favour and thus, the petitioners have not been permitted to deposit the remaining amount. They have, thus, filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order dated 11.8.2004, whereby decision has been taken to reject the bids and for direction to the respondents to accept the balance amount. In the year 1952-53, the State of Punjab had acquired CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16206 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: some land for setting up brick-kiln for lining of the Bhakra canal, which was being constructed. The land of the petitioners was acquired. The acquisition was stated to be temporary. The petitioners says that they did not accept compensation. After working of the canal has started, this land acquired has become un-utilised. The Government accordingly considered it appropriate to surrender this land. Thereafter, the land was never surrendered to those persons from whom this was acquired but a policy was framed to sell the same by way of public auction. A Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner for the said purpose. After the notification in this regard, public notice was issued for disposal of this land by way of public auction. The reserve price of the land was accordingly fixed and the participants intending to join the auction were required to deposit 10% of the reserve price with Executive Engineer. 15% was to be deposited at the fall of hammer and the remanning 75% was to be deposited within 15 days of the auction. In this manner, the auction was held on 20.1.2004, where petitioner No.1 gave a bid for Rs.10,60,000/-, petitioner No.2 for 9,30,000/- and petitioner No.3 for Rs.11,90,000/-. They deposited 25% of the bid amount and obtained receipt in this regard. When the petitioners went to deposit remaining 75% of amount, they were told that the file has gone to the Government for the purpose of approval and further action would follow on receipt of the file back. The petitioners continued to visit the office of the respondents and ultimately learnt that their bid was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 11.8.2004. The grievance of the petitioners is that land CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16206 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: situated in the adjoining villages Dadu, Takhtmal, and Desu Malkana, where an open auction of the land was held, have been sold to the successful bidders. The petitioners have approached the respondent authorities number of times but still no action was taken to consider the genuine request of the petitioners. It is, thus, pleaded that the petitioners have been discriminated by the order rejecting their bid. This action of the respondents is termed as arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition No.11458 of 2006, which was got dismissed as withdrawn to approach the authorities with a detailed representation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a representation but the respondents have remained silent. Legal notice was also issued but still no reply was given. The petitioners have, thus, filed this petition. During the pendency of the petition, however, the representation of the petitioners has been decided, intimating that the auction has already been cancelled and so the 25% of the amount deposited by the petitioners is liable to be refunded. Obviously, the petitioners have not raised any challenge to this order, which they have simply placed on record through an application filed in this regard. The counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the action of the respondents in cancelling the auction is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as other auctions held in the same revenue area have been confirmed. It is not disputed that the land after acquisition has vested in the Government. The Government had decided to sell this land by way of public auction. The auction which CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16206 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: was held was to be confirmed by the competent authority. When the bid given by the petitioners was sent to the competent authority, the auction was not confirmed and rather was cancelled. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out if a writ enforcing sale of the Government property would be maintainable. There is no legal or statutory duty, which the Government is required to perform while holding the sale of land by public auction. It is purely a decision, which appears to be commercial in nature and if the Government finds that the bid amount is not adequate, it could legitimately withdraw the property from auction. Writ Court apparently would not be in any competent position to enforce the Government to put public property to auction, when it decides to cancel the auction before confirmation. By participating in the auction and by deposing 25% of the amount, no right will accrue to the petitioners, which they can enforce through the writ petition. The petitioners may have something to say if the same land is put to auction again. The petitioners will be at liberty to participate therein. If this land fetches any amount less than what has been offered by the petitioners, during any subsequent auction, obviously the petitioners may have a grouse and would be entitled to seek relief from the appropriate Forum including this Court. At present, the writ as sought apparently is not maintainable and, thus, the same is dismissed. January 23, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE