RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2010 State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Kanshi Ram ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has placed on record a photocopy of memo dated 21.9.2010 granting sanction of the Government to pursue this appeal. The same is taken on record. RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to interest on the delayed payment @ 9% per annum. As per the averments made in the plaint, the appellant auctioned the surplus land on 9.7.2003 as per the terms and conditions. One of the terms and conditions for participating in the auction was to deposit advance money to the extent of 5% of the reserve price and no interest was to be paid on such advance money deposited with the Haryana Government at the time of refund. The another condition which is relevant was that the highest bidder was required to deposit 25% of the RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) 2 auction money at the spot along with advance money already deposited by the bidder and the remaining amount of 75% was to be deposited on receipt of sanction from the competent Authority. In the aforesaid auction, the plaintiff was the highest bidder and he deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.3,77,500/- as per the terms and conditions of the auction proceedings. However, the aforesaid auction proceedings were not approved and the appellant-State took a decision to cancel the auction vide order dated 21.12.2004. The amount so deposited by the plaintiff-respondent was returned to him by cheque on 9.6.2006. The plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit alleging that the auction dated 9.7.2003 was cancelled illegally and the appellant was reauctioning the property without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff- respondent and further claiming interest @ 18% on the delayed period of refund. The trial Court after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties held that it was within the power of the Government to cancel the auction proceedings and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim that the auction proceedings be confirmed in his favour and he may seek his remedy by filing a suit for damages, if so advised, for causing loss to him for cancellation of the auction. However, vide impugned decree, the trial Court found that the amount of 25% deposited by the plaintiff-respondent at the time of bid was refunded to him after a considerable delay and the amount was withheld without any reason and therefore, the appellant-State was bound to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 9.7.2003 upto 9.6.2006. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-State preferred an appeal before the Lower RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Appellate Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Lower Appellae Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.3.2010. Still not satisfied, the appellant-State has filed the instant appeal. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently argued that as per the terms and conditions of the auction, no interest was payable on the advance money deposited by the plaintiff- respondent at the time of auction and therefore, the appellant was not liable to be pay the interest as granted by the Courts below and the said finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Clause-14 of the terms and conditions which reads as follows: “No interest will be paid on an advance money deposited with Haryana Government at the time of refund”. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The relevant terms and conditions of the auction read as follows: “1. x x x x x 2. The bidder who deposit advance as mentioned in the columns will be entitled to participate in the auction only. 3. The successful bidder will be required to deposit 25% of the auction money at the spot along with advance already deposited by him. The remaining amount 75% will be deposited on receipt of sanction from the competent authority. 4. x x x x x RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) 4 5. Competent authority/Deputy Commissioner Hisar will be entitled to cancel the auction on the spot or at the later stage also and make any change in the auction, fully or part thereof without assigning any reason. 6. The unsuccessful bidder will be entitled to get their advance money refund immediately. 7 to 13. x x x x x 14. No interest will be paid on advance money deposited with Haryana Government at the time of refund.” A perusal of the aforesaid terms and conditions would show that three terms were used in the said auction i.e. advance money, amount of 25% of bid money to be deposited at the time of successful auction and balance amount of 75% to be deposited on receipt of sanction of the auction. There is no dispute that 5% amount was advance money which has to be deposited by each participant so as to take part in the auction as per condition No.2. 25% was the amount which was to be deposited on the fall of hammer by the successful bidder as is clear from condition No.3. Condition No.6 specifically states that the unsuccessful bidders will be entitled to get their advance money refunded immediately. Not only this, Clause 14 clearly stipulates that interest will not be paid at the time of refund on advance money deposited with the Haryana Government. Thus, refund of 25% of the auction money deposited by the plaintiff-respondent at the time of successful bid does not come under any of the terms and conditions as stated above. Not only this, condition No.6 specifically states that even the advance money is to be refunded to the unsuccessful bidder immediately. It is not in dispute that the appellant has taken three years' time to refund the bid amount of 25% to the plaintiff-respondent and there RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) 5 is no justification of keeping the aforesaid amount with the appellant for such a long period. Even the auction proceedings were cancelled by the appellant on 21.12.2004 and thus, there was absolutely no justification to deprive the plaintiff-respondent of his amount. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the plaintiff- respondent has been granted interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the plaintiff-respondent being the highest bidder. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that the State of Haryana through its competent Authority is entitled to recover the loss caused to it by the Authority/Officer who was responsible for causing the delay in refund of the amount to the plaintiff-respondent. It is for the appellant-Authorities to initiate action against such officer in accordance with law. CM No.9814-C of 2010 The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 84 days. A prayer has been made in this application for condoning the aforesaid delay on the ground that the delay has occurred due to administrative reasons, official process and the time taken by various Authorities in dealing with the file. Since this appeal has been decided on merits, this application does not survive. However, it may be mentioned that simply because the delay has been caused due to administrative exigencies this itself is not a ground to condone the delay. Moreover, the appellant has failed to explain the delay caused at various levels. It is for the Authorities to streamline their system for seeking their remedy in accordance with law and if some Authority/Official has caused delay in the process, the same can be dealt RSA No.3363 of 2010 (O&M) 6 with by taking disciplinary action against him. It is for the competent Authority to initiate such an action, as the case may be. CM stands disposed of. September 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE