CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION : September 16, 2009. Parties Name Hem Raj and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated December 31, 2008 (P-7), vide which auction of vacant plots, in Grain Market, Sunam, was cancelled. It is further prayer of the petitioners that directions be issued to the respondents to sell plots bearing No. 9 to 17 and booth No. 87 to them, being the highest bidders. It is apparent from the records that in the Grain Market, mentioned above, auction to sell the plots for shops was conducted on December 11, 2008. All the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2009 -2- 10,000/-, each, to participate in the above auction proceedings. It is their case that they were the successful bidders for the plots bearing Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17. After bid, they also deposited 25% amount of the sale consideration, which was accepted without raising any objection. Subsequent thereto, order, cancelling the auction proceedings, was passed on December 13, 2008. On enquiry made by them, it was stated that allotment of the plots has been cancelled because at the time of auction, some ante-social elements had created disturbance, which prevented the general public to participate in the auction, which has resulted into huge loss to the respondents. After issuance of notice of motion, reply has been filed. Para No. 2 of the preliminary objections reads thus: “That the petitioners have concealed material facts and tried to mislead the Hon'ble Court. True facts are that the team who conducted the auction on 11-12-2008 at Sunam Mandi comprising Administrator, New Mandi Township, District Mandi Officer Sangrur, Assistant Engineer and Naib Tehsildar of Colonization Department reported the events that took place at the time of auction to the Director, Colonization. Bid of the plots of General Shop No. 1 to 8 was done smoothly without any untoward incident but lateron when the auction of General Shop No. 9 to 17 and Booth No. 87 was resumed suddenly some anti social elements present in the auction reached on the stage and raised alarm and threatened the participants to face the consequences if any one tried to participate in the bid. They even went to the extent to threaten the members of the auction CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2009 -3- team to complete the auction proceedings the way they desire. The auction team was forced to sell out the said plots on very low rates. The team was of the view that if these plots are to be resold in fresh auction in cordial atmosphere, much more price could be obtained from the purchasers of these said plots.The team also suggested the Director, Colonization not to confirm the auction of these plots. Director Colonization immediately brought the whole proceedings in to the notice of the worthy Financial Commissioner (Development) with videography proposing not to confirm the bid. The Financial Commissioner (Development)upon close scrutiny and analysis of the auction process and its videography inferred that auction of the plots of General shop No. 9 to 17 and General Booth No. 87 was not held in cordial atmosphere and anti-social elements restrained the General Public to participate in the bidding, accepted the above said proposal of the Director Colonization thereby not confirming the part of auction and directed to communicate the incident to the local Administration Sangrur and Police department for taking necessary action. On receipt of the decision of the Government, as stated above, the Director -cum- Administrator New Mandi Townships, promptly conveyed the bidders that their bids have not been confirmed on 31-12-2008 and refund voucher were promptly dispatched forthwith. The Director has also written to the Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police Sangrur stating whole incident and requested to take action against the local S.H.O. who failed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2009 -4- to take action in spite of the fact that prior intimation of the auction was given to him for making necessary security arrangements.” After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the respondents is not justified and is discriminatory. The original noting sheets ( copy Annexure P-14) was shown to the Court at the time of arguments. As per noting sheets, for the plots No. 1 to 8 following detail has been given: Sr. No. Category Plot No. Reserved Price The sale price as per spot 1 General shop 1 13,80,000/- 26,00,000/- 2 -do- 2 -do- 23,05,000/- 3 -do- 3 -do- 26,00,000/- 4 -do- 4 -do- 25,75,000/- 5 -do- 5 -do- 24,30,000/- 6 -do- 6 -do- 25,25,000/- 7 -do- 7 -do- 25,25,000/- 8 -do- 8 -do- 26,10,000/- Regarding price fetched for plots No. 9 to 17 and booth No. 87, following detail has been given: Sr. No. Category Plot No. Reserved Price The sale price as per spot 1 General shop 9 13,80,000/- 22,60,000/- 2 -do- 10 -do- 22,60,000/- 3 -do- 11 -do- 26,10,000/- 4 -do- 12 -do- 26,50,000/- 5 -do- 13 -do- 22,05,000/- 6 -do- 14 -do- 25,10,000/- 7 -do- 15 -do- 21,25,000/- 8 -do- 16 -do- 21,25,000/- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2009 -5- Sr. No. Category Plot No. Reserved Price The sale price as per spot 9 -do- 17 (Kanal) -do- 25,50,000/- 10 Booth 87 4,05,000/- 4,67,000/- On perusal of above said table, it becomes clear that the stand taken, by the respondents, is not justified. If there had been any disturbance, the highest price would not have been fetched by plot No. 12, which was sold at Rs. 26,50,000/-. All the plots bearing No. 9 to 17 were sold for much higher amount, than the reserve price and the difference is very less, so far as the price fetched by plots No. 1 to 8 is concerned. Perusal of site plan Annexure P-13 also indicates that plots No. 9 to 17 are not in the advantageous position as compared to plots No. 1 to 8, which are situated next to the Grain Market, whereas, the plots No. 9 to 17 are situated near to the Sewerage Disposal Wells. The difference in price is not so high which may justify the action taken by the respondent – State. Otherwise also, on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, order passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside. Before passing orders Annexure P7 and P-14, no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner. They were never confronted with the facts, which have been alleged in the written-statement. It has also come on record that plots No. 2 and 8, which fetched Rs. 23,05,000/- and Rs. 26,10,000/- respectively towards price, the highest bidders had not deposited 25% of the price and accordingly the sale in their favour was cancelled and earnest money was forfeited. This also shows that may be, those plots were purchased at some higher price. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the price, at which plots CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2009 -6- were auctioned, in the same manner as was deposited by the purchasers of the plots No. 1 to 8. In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed, orders Annexures P-7 and P-14 are set aside and directions are issued to the respondents to confirm sale in favour of the petitioners by issuing allotment letters in their favour. Amount of price be recovered from them in the same manner in which it was realised from purchasers of plots No. 1 to 8. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge September 16, 2009. DKC