VKV>(' VMQ ? QwMw . 4_ 1_m Dh a ht, Mehta, . '/ Ni M-PNo .. ines Kumr Mea S/o (Shri Ramnik Lal aged about 24 years, Ro, Mehta~vas, Hana-Market, Durg (WP) -VE RS'UVS‘_ = {-1)- state of Mahya_raes through j M‘anéag‘in—Direcor‘ M . P .St ate Mket in ‘Feeraon, Bhopal (M.P ' Dur Marketing Socety td Kisan‘ Rice Mill, ham’a‘dha Naa, burg (34.? trough ‘Pre:1en ETITIGN UWER ARTICTIES 226/é§_0F Tn. wNSTITUTiON OF INDIA FOJR WRETS IN‘TH NATURE OF CERTIORARI‘ MAWLAMUS‘ PROHLBITIO ND FOR FURTHbR APPROPRIATE DELC’I‘IOBS. - ' éPdh gt, ar g éti ) . g i Lur D k ) h : sit',“ P H E N A XI—HC—ZZ mam MW 14.6.2005 Mr. P. Diwakar, Sr. ‘ ‘ counsel for ths petiiioner. Mr. B.R. Ghosh, coun Th3 petitioner‘has m 226/227 of the Constitutiq‘ propriety of letter dated 1 auction of Shop No. 1 in fa\ and 1f4th auction amoum forfeited by mspondent No.£ Brief facts leading 1 246,198? respondent No newspaper Dcshbandhu to No.2 situated in mnt of HighwayeNo.6 shall be auc conditions of auction issw participating in the said au‘ as securitv amount and as the said aucn‘on, thereto secun’ty amount with respo dent No.2 on 25.6. 1987 vide Annexure P-l. On the fateful day is. n 25.§.87 the auction commenced and being the highest bidder f0 Shop No. 1 the auction of said shop was accepted in favour of the. Rs. 15,000] - vide receipt No receipt No.7308 (Anne Condition No.20, of the terms 8r. conditions of the auction the ln’Lé ogm-u Counsel with Mr. Anup Mmmdar, .sel for respondent No.2. referzed this writ petition under Ariicle >11 of lndia questioning the legality and 1.7.1987 (Annexuxe P-6) whemby the 'our of the petitioner has been cancelled deposited by the petitioner has been m tiling of this petition are that on .2 floated an advertisement in local the edect that 10 shops of respondent Disttict Hospital, Durg and National :tioned on 25.6.1987. As per terms 8r. 1ed by respondent No.2 every person :tion was required to deoosit Rs.5,000/- ; the pen'n‘onel: wanted to participate in e, he also deposited Rs.5,000[— as titioner and accordingly, he deposited 7307 (Annexure P-2) &. Rs.28,000f— vide P-3) on the same day. According to XI—HC-22 Resident of tbs Marketing Comxnitt’ge was entitled to stop the auction anc1 put the same fo‘r m—auction and as per Condition No.21 the Presidcnt was also entitlg‘zd to accept orreject the last bid. The petitioner‘s caée ‘s that after depositing 1/4‘h amount of the bid i.e. Rs.48,000/- mspondent No.2 about the 4c¢eptance of bid but no communication was received from respond:ent' No.2 till 10.7. 1987, therefore, he wrote a lettef to rcspondcn+ No.2 informing that since he has not ‘\ rcceivod any letter of acc ptancc mm their side therefore, he revokes his bid and reques d for Iefund of 1] 4*1‘ amount of the bid i.e. Rs,48,000/—. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner he was informed vide letter-dated 1 .7. 1987 that as he has faikd to deposit . the remaining balance amo' t of his bid Within 15 days mm the date of auction, themfom, [4th amount of bid deposited by him is forfeited. The petitioner’s valid contract it was neces express terms informing was expecting communication from her case is that. in order to make a r to communicate to the petitioner in that his highest bid has been accepted by the Society, but in ahse ce of such aletter of acceptance from respondent No.2 they canno hold the peiitioner guilty of any bxeach and forfeit his Rs.48,000 - and the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his Oder before I 1 i ptance of his bid by the Committee. iReturn has been iiled ‘n behalf of respondent No.2 inlwhich it has been mentioned tha in response to the advertisement published by respondent No.2 in the newspaper the auction t commenced on 25.6. 1987 d as many as 14 poisons paiticipated in the auction process and § efore pardcipating in the aliltion each k, ,LAAA i i Xi—HC-22 mam of them had deposited Fs.5,000j- as security amount. The petitioner’s bid remained highest for shop No, 1 being Rs. 1,91,000] —, same was accgptcd and in token thereof the petin‘one: had signed , on the auction register in pwsence of the President &. Vice Pmsidcnt of the Soc1ety, wh1ch 1s ev1d nt from auctlon register Annexure R 3 Smce the Pxesnlent of the S mty accepted the b1d of peuuoner the 9 contennon of the petmoner lthat he expected that as per Condmon No.21 that respondent No W111 commuxucatc to hnn about the ‘ ‘ of 15 days is false. Respondent No.2 I acceptaoce of bid before exp had written a letter No.18] 7—88 dated 9.7.87 to the petitioner for depositing the bakmce amo t within the time speemed in terms 8r. conditions of auction. It wa also informed to the petitioner that if I lemming balance amount s not deposited Within time then 1/4‘h aucnon amount deposited o 25 6 1987 by him will be forfeited. The petitioner sent a registered notice to respondent No 2 which was duly replied hy msponden No 2 Vide letter dated 9 7 1987 and accented the request of the nuoner that the rent of Shoo w111 not be taken from the petition till the auction of other 08 shops is taken place. éopy of the 1e r Written by the petitioner and reply of respondent No.2 are Annemrc R~5 8r. R-6. It has further been 1 mentioned in the return that the petitioner had written a letter dated 10.7.87 ‘and reply of. same was sent by respondent No.2 vide’ letter dated 1 1.7.87 stating the reason of forfeitme of the amount. l have heard learned counsel forthe parties. i Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as pe Condition No.16 of terms .85 cond1tions of auction the petitioner Ls ck ,iii r WW mw amnunt of bid on the same day and No.21 respondent No.2 was required to communicate t0 the pctitionp‘f the acceptancc of auctign and since the same was not communi $ated to thc petitioner, the contract was not complete, therefore. the petiu'oner was not required to deposit the remaining balance amo t within 15 days and that is why the ‘ petitioner wrote a letter on llgth day to respondent No.2 withdrawing his ooer. Counsel for the ‘petitbner further argued that merely acceptahce of bid by the President of Society w'as not a valid acceptance of» aucn‘on, s the Committee was requimd to communicate the acceptano of auco'on and then 8a then only the petitioner was mquired to d£positvthe balance amonnt. He further ’ argued that it has been denied by the peh’tioner that the proceeding of the petitioner (Annexuxe R-3). Ultimately, counsel for th petitioner praYed for quashment of Annexuxe Fae. l On the other hand, le Ghosh argued that at the petitioner was accepted, which is evident fi‘om Annexuxe R-3 which bears the signature of the Sahu anti also the petitioner. deposit the balance amount within 15 days which the petitioner £ailed to deposit, therefore, he is not entitled for the relief sought for and this petition is liahle to of auction bears the s' amed counsel for xespondent No.2 Mr. end of auction the highest bid of the President of Committee Tamra Dwhaj As such the petitioner was tequixed to he dismissed. He further argued that in view of provisions of Section '64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 since them is a petitioner 8n :dispute between the immediateiy deposited 1/4‘11 ’ thereafter, as per Condition XI»HC-22 WWW ' WW§WW . ”3'! respondent No.2, the petitimmr ought to have xeferxed the disput‘e to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and in terms of sub~sec1ion (3) of Secu‘on 64 of the Act the decision given by the Regstrar cannot be questioned h; any court. Having heard. learnec'l counsel for the parties, I have perused the mlevant mcords and terms 8r. comiitions of the auciion Annemire P4. It is evident &om the record that before commencement of auction the bidders were made aware about the terms 3.5 conditions of auction, which has not ween disputed by the petitioner also. The relevant conditions of the above terms 8r. conditions ofthe auction in this case are Condition Nos.16 & 21. Condition No.16 envisages that “a person in whose favour ihe bid is closed wii? be required to deposit in cash at the spot .l/4‘h of the premium amount andfor that he wiil be entitledfor a re ipt. The ramming auction amount shaii‘ be deposited by the bidder iihin IS days and if he failed to deposii the premium amount withi 15 days the (motion shall be cancelled and 1,! 4‘“ pnemium amount deposited by the bidder shali be fomjfied The bidder will not be emit to take possession till he deposits the whole amount. Rent will st from 36h day from the date of auction whether the bidder siarts the shop or not” Condiiion No.21 envisages that “the Preside t of the Marketing Committee shall have the power to accept or reje the bid and Marketing Committee shall have absolute power to acoe t :he auction. ‘ If we look into the auction papem along with these two condih'ons, as per Condition No.21 the President of Marketing onnlAé,’D,«‘ n man Commitfse was entitled to aéceyt or mject the bid and in this case the bid of the petitioner waii accepted by the Pmsident at the spot which is evident from Anuexure R-3 and this fact has hem; menu'oned by the respondent No.2 in their return and same has not been denied by the petitioner. Now if we look into the Condition No.16 which in clear terms; envisages that 1/4‘h auction amount was mquired to be deposited by the bidder at the end of auction and remaining bahnce amount was required to be deposited within 15 . days. if further envisages that if bidder fails to deposit the remaining amount within 15 days then respondent No.2 will be entitled to cancel the auction and forfeit the 1/4‘h premium amount deposited by the bidder. In the first instance, Condition No.16 3/4‘h amount will be deposited only after acceptance of e bid or the auction, therefore, the contention of learned cou sel for the petitioner that without acceptance of the bid or au‘tion the petitioner was not required to deposit the remaining. 3/ amount as the contract was not complete is not susfainab e, In my opinion the contract was complete, for the reason that thmugh these terms and conditions an oh‘er was made by the resp ndent Committee and in aCceptance of the same the petitioner pated in the bid, his bid was accepted being the highest vide. Ann xure R-3, therefore the petitioner was required to deposit rem ' ' 3/4th amount within 15 days nnm The date of auction and for t purpose it was not obligatory for respondent No.2 to send sep ’te acceptance of bid to the petitioner. Even otherwise if the arguments of learned counsel for.the_Betitioner Xi—HC-ZZ nowhere envisages that re /A,\,c~c l p ‘ i is accepted, bid of thz petitiongr was accepted vide Annexure R-S, same bears the signature of the President of the Committee and the petitianer, as stafed by respondent No.2 in fhc rctmn. it has also i been mentioned in the 1e that same was communicated to the petitioner at the spot. Now, if we look into , e Condition Nos.‘16 8r, 21 together it cannot be interpreted that Lemaining 3] 4th yleminm amount was required to be deposited only after acceptance of the aucn'on. The second part of Condition No.21 says that the Marketing Committee, Burg had absolute right for acceptance of the auction but it has nowhexe mentionw that Committee was entitled to reject the auction when the bid was accepted by the Resident. Themfoxe, there is no men't in the argument advanced by counsel for th petitioner that respondent was entitled for xemaining 3/4m pmmium amount only after acoepmnce of auction by the Marketing Committee. Even othexwise: one day before the expiry of 15 days respondent No.2 informed ‘e petitioner vide Annexure R—4 that his bid was accepted for Shop o. 1 being highest, 1/4t‘1 amount of bid was deposited by him on e same day and it was further written that he should deposit remaining 3/4‘h amount of bid by 10.7.1987 failing which 1/ *h amount deposited by him shall be forfeited. Even in reply to the letter written by the petitioner on 29.6. m8? xespondent No.2 stopped‘on‘ account of not fetching smcient price and for fmt er proceeding in this regard the meeting of Committee is being convened very shortly. it was further made ¥ ”MAVLL in informed the petitioner that auction of remaining 08 shops were e XI—HC-22 Wm a 200 %$:&r my mm Mmw mm fg¢m . $Wam§r v$r~ XI—HC-ZZ A {fwkMJr to express any opinion abo Cooperative Societies Act, 1E In the result, the peti1 is liable to be dismissed a made easy. \ / clear f‘hat the rent of thc shop will he malized only ai?£r remaining O8 shops are auctioned. In vim of the abovc foregoing discussion, it is not neccssary at the applicability of Section 64 of the I60. ion of the petitioner has no men‘t, same ad it is accordingiy dismissed. Cost is Sdl- ’ L.C.BHADOO Judge / mow)