^- c ^i^Si^^^^^^J IN THE HIGH CQUKT OP eHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. r2--P6f /2006 ^Dewanand Adwani, Aged about 33 years, S/o. Shri C.M. Adwani, R/o. ^.-^^ )'• Main Road' Kavita Sari Center, ^•"w ••- ^'(^•--" PETITIONER \01?-^^"..- , ^ }••:< 'i^v^" .l/--'ftc t'\ ^^"' ^yy" v<fy ^' RESPONDENTS Bus Stand, Simga, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Departnient of Urban Development & Adininistration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. REC-'WBD-CO^. CUEREJt^^"fo Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Simga, District Raipur (C.G.). President, Nagar Panchayat, Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) Nagar Panchayat Siiaga, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Siaaga, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Mil ^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILA8PUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2759/2006 Aiav Adwaai Vs. State of Chhattisearh aud othera WRIT PETITION N0.2761/2006 Dewanaad Adwani Vs. State of Chhattisearh aud others WRIT PETITIQN N0.2769/2006 Noor Mohamiaad Vs. State of Chhattisearh and others ApBearance: Shri A.K. Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioners Shri Satish Guota. Dv. Govt. Advocate for the State/resoondent No. l. Shri Virendra Sharma. Counsel for respondents No. 2, 3 S54. ORAL ORDBR ifil Q onf»<ii ^ <>^lt< •»ft^fllf^fvfff SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (11 These are the fhree Writ Petitions filed bv ftie fhree hiehest bidders. who had participated ia the proceedinas of auction of ^shops ofN^ar Pauchayat, Sitaga, District - Raipur (C.G.), which ' took nlace on 16/5/2006. (2) The brief facts are fhat Naear Paachavat. Simga. has contracted inanv shops ia Bus Staad. Simea. These shons were proposed to be siven on lease by auction for certaia oeriod. It was decided by fhe Naear Panchavat fhat fhe shops shaU be put ou auction aud the highest bidders ia the auction be aUotted fhe shops on lease so fhat, it mav brine inore eanung to the Nagar Panchavat aud fhe suitable and coinpetent oersons should eet fhe shops accordiD.e to the bid offered bv theia. For the purposes of biddiag aud auction, certain conditions were also fi-amed bv the Nagar Paachavat aad the bidduie had to take nlace accordias to the said conditions. A copv of such conditions has beea ffled as Annexure P-2 in WP No.2761/2006. Apart from manv eeneral conditions ia this document, an importaat condition vide condition No.3 is that the bidding shall be inade bv the oerson, who, in fact, wants to take fhe shop in^ lease aad the saine shall not be made by his aRents/rcpresentatives etc. The date for auction was fixed on 16/5/2006. On 16/5/2006, fhe auction began from shop No.l onwards. Admittedlv. fhe Betitioner ia WP No.2759/2006 namelv Aiav Adwani was the highest bidder for shop No.l and fhe bidding was finalized for fhe said shoo in sum. ofRs. 2,08,000/- fTwo Lakh Eight Thousand) aad ultimately, the recoiiunendations for aUotnient of this shou was niade in his favour on account of he beiae the hjghest bidder for fhe said shop in fhe said ooen auction. V (3) Likewise, for shop No.2, fhe petitioner m WP No.2761/2006 namelv Dewanaad Adwaai was the hiahest bidder aad the biddiae for this shop closed at Rs.2,15.000/- fTwo Lakh Pifteen Thousandl and accorduielv. fhe steos for further action for aUotment were taken by the Nassa Paachavat. Likewise, the petitioner iu WP No.2760/2006 was fhe highest bidder for shop No.3, as he aave fhe hiehest bid in sujn of Rs.2.26,000/- (Two Lakh Tweutv Six Thousaad) and the steps for allotment of fhis shop was also taken ia his favour. Later on, the dispute arose, \ ^;^«; •i- when the biddiae in relation to shpp No.4 was eomg on aud ultmiately, the situation became worse when, as per contention of leamed couasel for the Nagar Panchavat, the persons assembled at the place of biddiae started iaterferine with the workiue of fhe persons of the Nagar Panchavat aad fhe situation became so teu.se that ultiinatelv, further biddiae had to stop bv fhe Naear Paachavat. The oersons, who were oresent there made coiuulaint that for shop No.2. which was allotted on the name of Dewaaand Adwani. ia fact, Dewanand Adwani had not come for the biddiag and the biddine was eiven bv his brofher nacaelv Aiav Adwani aad iu this niamier, the aUotinent ui his favour is iu violation of fhe seneral conditions ofallotment, which should be canceUed. (4) The Nagar Paachavat has filed retum in all fh.e cases. It has been speci&caUv inentioned in para 7 of fhe retura that durine the course of auction of shop No.4, a dispute arose between fhe of&cials aad fhe bidders aad obiections were taken fhat fhe biddiae is inade bv fhe reoresentatives aad the actual candidates/purchasers are not present iu ttie proceediaas, as so far as shoo No.2 is conceraed, fhe biddina was made bv fhe .brofb.er of fhe ourchaser and when this obrection was taken, the said purchaser nainelv Dewaaand Adwani, petitioner ni WP No.2761/2006, came hurriedly on fhe spot aad snatched fhe auction reeister aad nut his sifinature on the reaister to ascertain his uresence durine fhe auction Droceedinss ofsaid shop No.2. '.'^ f5) It apuears that fhereafter. the auction was stopped on the said date and the Nasar Paachavat vide a resolution dated 26/5/2006 (ftmiexure P-7) took a decision that the auction for att the shops should be done agam and the entire proceediugs of the auction iacluding the proceedirias relatina to shops No. 1 to 3 were canceUed and a new date for fresh auction was fixed on 14/6/2006. t-^ c (61 Bv wav of fhis Writ Petition ffled bv the three highest bidders offhe aforesaid shoos No.l. 2 & 3, the vaUditv of this action taken bv fhe Nagar Paachavat aud fhe vaUdity of fhe decision dated 26/5/2006 has been auestioned. (71 Leamed couasel for fhe petitioners subinits fhat when the bidding pertamiag to shops No. l to 3 were ak'eady concluded, it was not iustified for the Naear Panchavat to caacel the uroceedines of biddins aad recominendations for aUotment of thcse shops on the grou-ad tbat certaia dispute took place while fhe auctioa of shop No.4 was goiae oa. He also submits ftiat fhe coinpletion of biddm.e and proceediae of auction ia relation to shous No. 1 to 3 amouiits to creation of a concluded coatract between the bidders aad fhe Nagar Panchavat and the Naear Panchavat cannot be aUowed to withdraw froiu fhe said action taken bv them.. (8) On fhe ofher hand. learaed couxisel for fhe Nasar Panchayat submits that the biddiug in relation to shop No.2 was not in accordaace with the eeneral conditions (Aanexure P-2), as the actual aUottee was not prcsent at fhe tune of biddtng aud fhe bid was given bv his brother, who mav be his aaent or representative, which is agaiust condition No.3 offtie said general conditions. He also submits that fhe further actioa taken bv fhe aUottee of shop No.2 i.e Dewanaad Adwaai (petitioner iu WP No.2761/2006) bv snatehiag fhe reeister fi-om the authorities of fhe Nagar Paachavat and forcefullv puttiag his sieaatures in the documents to show that he was present at the tune of biddiae is not m. accordauce wifh law and fhe action of caacellation of fhe entire auction was ftiUy iusti&ed and the saiae shoiild not be interfered wifh bv this Court. (9) So far as the case of petitioner - Dewaiiand Adwani is '^ concemed, admittedlv, biddiae was finalized in his favour &>r ^SSSSS^'sSSlSS. a'^s^^^^^i^^^-P'^^-^f; ^"^ shon No.2 vide the said auctioa. However. it couies that when the biddiae of shop No.4 was eome on, fhis fact was brouaht to fhe notice of fhe authorities of the Nagar Paacbavat fhat in fact, this petitioner - Dewaaand Adwani was not present at the tiiae of biddiae/auction of shoc No.2 aad the bid was eiven bv his brother namely Aiav Adwani and when the oersoas of fhe Naear Paachayat started takms action about the auction of shop No.2, he anv how eot this news and rushed to the snot aad he forcefuUv snatehed fhe reeister of the Nagar Paachayat and put his signatures at vanous places so as to make it evident fhat he ia fact. was nresent at fhe tim.e ofbiddine and he had ofiFered the bid for the allotment of fhe said shop. i10} Leamed counsel for fhe said oetitioner has denied tiiese aBeeations. His subnussion is that fhis erouad taken bv the Nagar Panchavat is an after fhought eround iust to anvhow cancel fhe allotaient of shop No.2 to the petitioner - Dewanaad Adwani. He refers to the document fAaiiexure P-7). which is fhe copy ofthe proceedm.es ofNaear Paachavat dated 26/5/2006. 111) It is apparent from fhe oleadiaes ofthe parties aad also fhe docunients ffled by fhem ftiat soiiie dispute arose while concluduie the auction of shoos No.2 aud 4 and fhe laaui com.olaiat. so far as shon No.2 is conceraed. was that fhe allottee of the said shoo was not Dresent and fhe bid was offered bv his aeent or his renresentative and iu ttus inaimer, the sarue was not in accordance with the eeneral conditions issued by fhe Naear Paachavat for fhe said allotment. It would appear that the aUeeations are inade about allotuient of shop No.2 only and on account of said aUeeatiou in fhe matter of aBotment of shop No.2 onlv, the auction ofentire 3 shops were caaceUed. (12^ In fhe oouuon ofthis Court, ia the facts aad circumstances of fhis case, fhe action taken bv the Naear Pao^chavat regardiag caucellation of auction of entire fhree shops on account of alleeations against auction of one shop only was not in accordauce with law. II according to thein, fhere was soine irregularity in fhe auction of shop No.2. fhev should have oitly canceUed fhe auction pertauung to the said shop, but in auy case they should uot have canceUed the auction of other shops. The decision taken by the Naaar Panchavat i.e. on 26/5/2006 reeardiue canceUation of auction of shop No. 1 and 3 deserve to be set aside aad it is accordiaelv set aside. (13) It is declared that the auction of shop No.l and 3 dated 16/5/2006 were concluded aad thev were not required to be canceUed bv the Naear Panchavat on these srounds. The Nasai Paachavat mav proceed with further steos reeardme allotment of shoo No. 1 and 3 ia iavour of their resDective hiehest bidders i.e petitioners in WP No.2759/2006 and 2760/2006. 114} So far as auction pertaining to shov No.2 is concemed. it is a disouted aUotiaent. as it appeara froin fhe stateinent made on oath bv the Naear Pancbavat that the said allotment was done on an offer beine made bv the asent or the representative of the allottee. which was against condition No.3 of ftie eeneral conditions. The decisiou regardiag canceUation of aUotment of shoD No.2 is corrcct and the same is uoheld. The Naear Pancliavat is fi-ee to take stens for fresh auction of shop No.2 in accordaace wifh law. shyna (15) In the result, WP No.2761/2006 is dismissed and WP No. 2759/2006 and WP No. 2760/2006 are aUowed to the extent mdicated above. (16) AU the Writ Petitions staad disposed of. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge