1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2652/2005. Nand Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 26th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: The petitioners, 6 in number, having participated in the auction of plots of land situated at Gharsana Mandi as held by the respondent No. 2, Mandi Development Committee, Bikaner on 15.04.2005 in terms of auction notice dated 11.03.2005 (Annex.1) read with the notice dated 17.03.2005 (Annex.2), having allegedly given the highest bids for the respective plots, and, pursuant to such highest bids, having deposited 1/4th of the requisite amount on 15.04.2005 (receipts Annex.3) filed this writ petition on 03.05.2005 while stating the grievance that the Collector, Sriganganagar proceeded to cancel such bids as stated in the news item dated 17.04.2005 (Annex.4) and as informed by the communications dated 28.04.2005 (Annex.6). Put in brief, the petitioners referred to the constitution of the Mandi Development Committees by the State Government for the purpose of development of land in the Mandi areas, i.e., 2 the areas forming part of colony commanded by Bhakra and Indira Gandhi Canal Projects and pointed out that for the sale and allotment of land in Mandi areas, the State Government has, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 read with Section 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, ('the Act of 1954') framed the Rajasthan Colonisation (Sale and Allotment of Land in Mandis in the Bhakra and Indira Gandhi Canal Projects Colony Areas) Conditions, 1973 [‘the Conditions of 1973’]. The petitioners, after referring to the relevant provisions submitted that the plots in the Mandi areas are required to be sold by the Auction Committee as per the procedure provided under the said Conditions of 1973 and referred to Condition No.8 for constitution of an Auction Committee and particularly sub-clause (8) of Condition No.8 whereby the result of auction is required to be communicated to the Chairman of the Committee who is to pass final order either for confirming or rejecting a bid. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No. 2, Mandi Development Committee, Bikaner had not been able to conduct the auction for disposal of the plots in Ghadsana Mandi area on account of objection of the Vyapar Mandal and threat of boycott to the auction being given; that a notice was issued on 11.03.2005 proposing to auction the plots that included the plots for Ghadsana Mandi and 15.04.2005 was 3 the date fixed for such action. The petitioners further alleged that after issuance of such auction notice, but on the apprehension of the obstruction by Vyapar Mandal, the place of auction was changed from the premises of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ghadsana to the office of the Assistant Collector cum Secretary, Mandi Development Committee, Kothi No.2, Bikaner by the notice dated 17.03.2005 (Annex.2). The petitioners averred that in accordance with the schedule of auction notice aforesaid, the auction took place on 15.04.2005; and they offered highest bids for various plots, as mentioned in Schedule-A to the writ petition. The petitioners maintained that their bids regarding such plots in Ghadsana Mandi being the highest, the respondent No.2 accepted 1/4th of the amount in respect of their bids on 15.04.2005 itself. The petitioners further stated that while waiting for confirmation of their bids, they were surprised to come across a news item dated 17.04.2005 that the Collector, Sriganganagar had cancelled the said bids and thereupon, the petitioner No.2 approached the respondent No.2 for making available the copy of the order passed by the Collector but no such copy was made available; and on the contrary, the respondent No.2 issued the communications dated 28.04.2005 intimating the petitioners that the bids submitted by them have been cancelled by the Collector and, therefore, 1/4th amount deposited by them would be refunded. 4 The petitioners submitted that the action of the Collector in issuing the order for cancellation of bids had been wholly without jurisdiction and illegal being in violation of the provisions as contained in the Conditions of 1973. The petitioners further submitted that the communications dated 28.04.2005 as issued by the respondent No.2 on the basis of the order of Collector were also without jurisdiction. The petitioners also contended that cancellation of bids had been highly arbitrary and unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also suggested that discretion to confirm or reject the bid had been conferred on the Chairman of the Committee i.e., the Chairman of the Auction Committee and the Collector had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. It was also submitted that Condition No.8, so far giving out unguided powers to the authority concerned to cancel the bids, remains arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be given effect to. The petitioners also submitted that cancellation of their bids being illegal and arbitrary, the attempt on the part of the respondents in putting the plots to re-auction remains equally illegal and deserves to be quashed. The petitioners sought the reliefs, inter alia, that the communications dated 28.04.2005 be quashed and the respondents be directed to confirm their bids; and also prayed for the interim relief that the respondents be restrained from 5 conducting fresh auction in respect of the plots in question. On 05.05.2005, while issuing notices for final disposal in this writ petition, this Court directed that if the plots in question were put to auction again, the bids shall not be finalised until further orders. This Court passed the following order: “Heard. Issue notice for final disposal. Issue notice of stay application as well. Meanwhile, if the plots in question are again put to auction, the bid shall not be finalised till further orders.” The respondents essentially submitted in the reply to the writ petition that Condition No.3 of the Conditions of 1973 stood amended by the Notification dated 17.06.1986 (Annex. R/1) and Collectors were declared as Chairman of the Mandi Development Committees in their respective jurisdiction and, therefore, according to the respondents, the order passed by the Collector cannot be said to be suffering from want of jurisdiction. The respondents also submitted that the interpretation as put by the petitioners on the expression “Committee” was not correct because in the context of Conditions of 1973, the “Committee” denotes only to the Mandi Development Committee as defined in Condition No.2(3) and the expression ''Committee'' wherever used in the said Conditions refers to the Mandi Development Committee only. 6 According to the respondents, the Auction Committee meant specifically for the purpose of auction is not akin to the Mandi Development Committee and Condition No.8, so far it relates to confirmation of the bids, only refers to the Chairman of the Mandi Committee itself and not the Chairman of the Auction Committee. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the said reply; and also prayed for amendment of the writ petition that was allowed on 29.11.2005. The petitioners have contended in the amended writ petition, inter alia, that the Notification (Annex.R/1) does not have the effect of amending the Conditions of 1973 and rather the State Government had no power to change the constitution of the Committee by simply issuing a Notification. It is also submitted that the amendment of the conditions could be made only in accordance with Sections 28 and 29 of the Act of 1954; and, according to the petitioners, if the respondents contend that the Notification (Annex.R/1) has the effect of amending the Conditions of 1973, such amendment was never placed before the State Legislature as required by Section 29 of the Act of 1954. It has been reiterated that in the Conditions of 1973, the decision regarding confirmation of bid is required to be taken by the Auction Committee and the Collector has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. By way of the amended writ petition, the petitioners have also prayed for declaring illegal and 7 striking down the Notifications dated 17.06.1986 and 26.02.1997 as relied upon by the respondents. The learned Government Counsel was granted time to file reply to the amended writ petition. In the meantime, on 17.12.2005, the petitioners moved a second stay application when a fresh auction notice in relation to the plots in question was issued on 01.12.2005 (Annex.7). In reply to the second stay application, the respondents submitted that earlier the State Government had stayed the auction until further orders but thereafter, on 25.11.2005, the State Government permitted such auction and hence, the auction notice was issued but the order passed by the Court on 05.05.2005 shall be complied with and the bids shall not be finalized. In view of such reply, the counsel for the petitioners did not press on the second stay application and the same was rejected as such on 13.01.2006. In view of the notices for final disposal, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard finally. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents; and no reply to the amendment writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the fact situation of the case and the grounds as taken in the amended writ petition, strenuously contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to meddle and interfere with the matter that was only for consideration of the Auction Committee as per Condition No.8 of the Conditions of 1973. 8 Learned counsel further submitted that the constitution of the Committee as provided by the Conditions of 1973 cannot be changed without adhering to the requirement of law as per the Act of 1954 and the suggestion of the respondents of having amended Condition No.3 by way of a Notification cannot be accepted. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the aforesaid, the significant aspect of the matter is that even when the reply submissions of the respondents are taken into consideration, the Chairman in relation to the Ghadsana Mandi area falling within the jurisdiction of Mandi Development Committee, Bikaner was the Collector, Bikaner and, therefore, in any case, the Collector, Sriganganagar had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter at all; and the said Collector seems to have proceeded without having regard to any of the relevant considerations; and it had been unjustified on the part of the respondents that despite demand, even the order passed by the said Collector was not supplied to the petitioners. The respondents have chosen not to appear in the matter; the reply that has been filed before the Court is not precisely answering to all the questions as involved in the writ petition; and then, no reply to the amended writ petition has been filed though the petitioners have challenged the Notifications as relied upon by the respondents. However, it is noticed that the matter concerns auction of the plots in the Mandi area and the questioned auctions were held way back 9 in the year 2005. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that even if all other aspects of the grounds as urged by the petitioners are left aside and not adjudicated upon, the fundamental aspect emerging from the Notification dated 17.06.1986 (Annex.R/1) as filed and relied upon by the respondents themselves is that the Collector, Bikaner was supposed to be the Chairman in relation to the Mandi Development Committee, Bikaner having the jurisdiction over Ghadsana Mandi area, in relation whereof were held the auctions in question. The impugned communications dated 28.04.2005 precisely state that the bids have not been accepted in view of the order passed by the Collector, Sriganganagar on 15.04.2005. As to how the Collector, Sriganganagar had acquired jurisdiction in the matter when Ghadsana Mandi area was specifically placed within the jurisdiction of Mandi Development Committee, Bikaner with the Collector, Bikaner being its Chairman has not been explained by the respondents and is rather contradicted by the document Annex.R/1. It is also noticed that the order dated 15.04.2005 allegedly passed by the Collector, Sriganganagar has not been supplied to the petitioners despite demand; and the respondents have chosen not to place the same on record before this Court either. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances 10 and such state of record, this Court is of opinion that without pronouncing on any other grounds as sought to be urged by the petitioner, interest of justice shall be served if the impugned communications are quashed and the matter is remitted for re-consideration by the present Chairperson of the concerned Mandi Development Committee who may examine the matter with reference to the bids advanced by the petitioners; and in the fact situation where the bids were advanced way back in the year 2005, it would be appropriate if the said Chairperson would extend an opportunity to the present petitioners to make submissions before him if so desired, and to take a decision in the matter after due notice. As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, the impugned communications dated 28.04.2005 are quashed and set aside and the matter stands remitted for re-consideration of the present Chairperson of the concerned Mandi Development Committee in accordance with law and with reference to the observations made hereinabove. It shall be expected of the said Chairperson to take appropriate decision in the matter as early as possible, preferably within two months of the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioners before him. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. 11 MK