L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 Date of decision: 2.11.2011 M/s Seema Agro Industries ..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the Appellant. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenge has been made to the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition and consequently vacating the interim order. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. 2. The petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and came into existence in 1991. In order to start a business of poultry feed, it took a loan of ` 7.20 lacs from the Haryana Financial Corporation in the year 1991 on the strength of a project report. The loan of ` 7.11 lacs was sanctioned. It is the petitioner’s case that against the sanctioned loan, the Corporation paid out an amount of `5.83 lacs to the L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 2 petitioner. The petitioner ran into default and was directed by the Corporation to pay the loan with interest in six monthly installments of `90,000/- each. Thereafter, on 8.9.1994, the petitioner approached the Branch Office of the Corporation at Gurgaon for change of project from Poultry feed to Besan and Pulse Mills; the Corporation asked for filing of a new project report and since there was no response from the Corporation, it is suggested that there should be deemed acceptance of the new project report was accepted. The property on which the project was to be executed was mortgaged to the Corporation. The respondent-Corporation is said to have invited tenders for auction of the petitioner firm for willful default in payment of dues. The first round of litigation against the auction led to the dismissal of CWP No.6062 of 1997. It is culled from the record that on 22.4.1996, the respondent-Corporation decided to sell the mortgaged property by inviting tenders. Petitioner was advised by the Corporation to find a suitable buyer for the sale of the property. The date fixed for opening of sealed tenders was fixed as 7.5.1996. In response to this, the appellant avers that he found one Naresh Kumar son of Shri Jai Bhagwan to make a bid of the mortgaged property at `4,86,000/-. Naresh Kumar in terms of the tender notice deposited `48,600/-, i.e., 10 % of earnest money of the bid. On 11.7.1996, the Corporation informs Naresh Kumar to come for further negotiations at the Corporation’s office on 24.7.1996. It transpires that one S.S.Yadav, a third person, also made a bid, as he had every right to, for the mortgaged property for ` 5.00 lacs. The appellant further says that Naresh Kumar’s offer was enhanced to ` 5 lacs. On 11.10.1996, the Corporation informed the petitioner that despite its best efforts to get the best price for the property, the highest offer that it had received was ` 5.05 lacs and the Corporation had decided to confirm the same. In an effort to counter this, the appellant states that he had located another bidder by L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 3 name Sangeeta Singh who is ready to offer ` 5.75 lacs for the property and that a Demand Draft towards earnest money was sent on 18.11.1996 in respect thereto. 3. Aggrieved by the Corporation’s acceptance of the bid of S.S. Yadav, third party (supra), the writ petition was brought before this Court in April 1997 praying for a mandamus to the Corporation to accept the offer of Sangeeta Singh, the alleged highest bidder which has been decided after 15 years by the order impugned in this appeal. 4. We have perused para No.2 of the written statement of respondent No2 & 3 where the chain of events starting from 24.7.1996, when the first negotiation was held, to the re-tendering process initiated by the Corporation have been enumerated. Relevant portion from the written statement where the entire story is unfolded is reproduced as under:- “On 24.7.1996 the negotiations were held and petitioner increased the bid of Shri Naresh Kumar from 4.86 lacs to ` 5 lacs. But Shri Raj Singh and Shri S.S.Yadav refused to enhance their bids. The negotiation committee decided to confirm the highest offer of ` 5 lacs but on 30 July 1996 the answering respondent received a letter from Shri Raj Singh one of the tenderer, alleging that the petitioner has done impersonation and defrauded the Corporation because all the papers were signed by him and Shri Naresh Kumar was not in the office at the time of the negotiation. The copy of the complaint is annexed here as Annexure R-1. In view of the complaint received by the answering respondents, the highest offer of ` 5 lacs received from Shri Naresh Kumar was L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 4 rejected and on enquiry it was further found that, in the offer given by Shri Naresh Kumar neither the address was given nor any other telephone number was given from which it can be confirmed that he is a genuine buyer. The answering respondent decided to re-tender the unit copy of fresh tender notice were sent to Raj Singh Naresh Kumar and Shri S.S. Yadav for participating in the negotiation. On 16.9.1996 the highest tender of ` 5.05 lacs was received from Shri Raj Singh of Sonepat and letter dated 5.10.1996 (Annexure R-2) was sent to the petitioner and other partners informing them regarding highest offer and they were categorically told to bring any better buyer within 15 days, failure of which the answering respondents would confirm the sale. It is submitted here that the petitioner received the letter dated 11.9.1996 on 2.11.1996 but did not send any communication in the meantime and after waiting for a long time the answering respondents confirmed the offer of Shri Raj Singh and confirmed the sale on 7.11.1996. The petitioner submitted the tender of ` 5.75 lacs on 19.1.1996 along with the Demand Draft of Rs. 51,000/-. The copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure R-3. A bare perusal of the letter makes it very clear that the offer of Sangeeta Singh sent by the petitioner was conditional offer as the amount of offer and amount of Demand Draft are contradictory to each L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 5 other. Further more the offer was received by the answering respondents when the sale was already confirmed.” 5. The appellant filed replication dated 5.10.1997 to the joint written statement of the second and third respondent. We have perused the contents of the same. A combined reply has been given to para Nos.1 and 2 of preliminary submissions in the written statement without clearly admitting or denying the specific contents of para No.2 and the material facts contained therein. The intervention of Ms. Sangeeta Singh by her letter dated 18.11.1996 (P9) cannot be seen by us as divine intervention sufficient to dislodge the confirmation of sale at `5.05 lacs and to throw out the auction purchaser. A perusal of Annexure P-19 leaves no manner of doubt that the dismissal of the writ petition was for good and sufficient reason and we would do well to reproduce the exact words of the letter. It reads thus:- “a) If am allowed to purchase the unit without further bidding/negotiation in that case my offer is for ` 5,75,000/ (` Five lac seventy five thousand only). b) If you call for negotiation with other bidders then my offer stand at ` 5,10, 000. Please find enclosed DD for ` 51000/- (` fifty one thousand) DD No. 182158 dated 18.11.1996 as earnest money of above mentioned unit.” 6. A reading of the letter confirms the view of the Learned Single Judge that the bid was a ploy to stall the auction. In real effect her bid was only ` 5000/- more than the highest bid accepted that is ` 5.05 lacs. It was an insignificant amount and the bid was made after the event. The offer of Rs 5.75 lacs was a sop. A mirage. L.P.A. No. 1930 of 2011 6 7. We have heard Mr. D.S. Bali, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the appellant on the issues raised. 8. Learned senior counsel has not been able to breathe any life to salvage the petition from any angle. In the ultimate analysis for just ` 5000/-, the appellant has paralyzed recovery of public money contrary to public interest and has grossly abused the process of the Court and we feel that the learned single judge is absolutely correct in observing that the appellant had only a personal axe to grind by filing the writ petition. 9. The learned Single Judge has not imposed costs but we would not hesitate in doing so in appeal. 10 In view of the above, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is upheld and the appeal is dismissed in limine. Costs of ` 10,000/- follow the dismissal of this appeal. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE November 2,2011 nk