CWP No.8804 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8804 of 2007 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 **** M/s. Atwal Agro Chemical Mentha Oil Industries . . . Petitioner VS. State Bank of India & Ors. . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. RS Bhatia, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 15.05.2007 (Annexure P9) whereby its objections against the auction stated to have been held on 22.01.2007 (wrongly mentioned as 22nd December, 2007 in the impugned order) have been rejected by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. (2). Without reference to the detailed facts suffice it to observe that respondent No.1 had filed OA No.83 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh CWP No.8804 of 2007.doc - 2 – against the petitioner seeking recovery of Rs.34.82 lacs along with interest. It appears that the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat held in the DRT but the petitioner having failed to pay the agreed amount in terms of the said compromise, that the settlement was sought to be executed by the Bank. The Recovery Officer of the DRT accordingly issued the notice of proclamation of sale dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure P1), whereby two immoveable properties of the petitioners (lot 2 and lot 3) were offered for public auction which was scheduled to be held on 22nd January, 2007 at 11.00 a.m. “at the road side of the Bus Stop at the Entry of Village Bhagoran”. (3). Respondents No.2 & 3 - the auction purchasers are said to have given the highest bid of Rs.6.20 lacs in respect of lot No.2 against the reserve price of Rs.6 lacs and of Rs.7.40 in respect of lot No.3 against the reserve price Rs.7 lacs. Their bid was accepted and the amounts were got deposited. The petitioners thereafter filed their objections before the Recovery Officer, inter alia, alleging that - (i) site of the auction was changed by Court auctioneer at his own will; (ii) no wide publicity to the proposed auction was given. (4). These objections have been turned down by the Recovery Officer (RO) after observing that the auction CWP No.8804 of 2007.doc - 3 – was conducted at the site where one of the property is located i.e. 2.5 kilometers away from the notified place of auction and that minor change did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The second objection regarding lack of publicity has also been turned down. (5). Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. (6). It may be mentioned here that when this case came up for preliminary hearing on May 30, 2007, reliance was placed upon CWP No.19113 of 2005 which was also pending before this Court. The present writ petition was also accordingly admitted and ad interim stay to maintain status quo was passed in the same terms as in CWP No.19113 of 2005. (7). The aforesaid CWP No.19113 of 2005 has thereafter been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide detailed order dated 27.11.2008 against which the Letter Patents Appeal No.301 of 2008 has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2009. (8). Notwithstanding that, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (9). In my considered view, no interference with the impugned order dated 15.05.2007 (Annexure P9) passed by the Recovery Officer is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is well CWP No.8804 of 2007.doc - 4 – settled that unless a case of serious prejudice is made out, the procedural irregularities, if any, committed by a quasi-judicial authority, do not warrant any interference. The petitioner has failed to make out a case as to how the slight change in the place of auction has caused any prejudice to them, especially when the exhibition of the property at the spot would have inspired more confidence to give a better offer to the bidders. The fact that there were sufficient participants in the auction also belies the petitioner’s plea regarding lack of publicity. (10). The decisions in (i) Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. Tirupati Woollen Mills Shramik Sangharsha Samity and another v. Union Bank of India and other; and (ii) State Bank of Patiala v. M/s. Khosla Engg. Co., AIR 1993 P&H 207 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners have no bearing on the facts of the case in hand. (11). The contention that due to change of place of auction which was 2.5 kilometers away from the notified place of auction only outside bidders came and participated also does not impress for the obvious reason that the co-villagers are invariably reluctant to participate in such like auctions. CWP No.8804 of 2007.doc - 5 – (12). For the reasons already assigned by this Court in CWP No.19113 of 2005 and as supplemented above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. (13). Dismissed. (14). However, the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of MA No.1/2007 which is stated to be pending before the DRT Chandigarh Bench. (15). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.07.2010 vishal shonkar