CWP No.1964 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1964 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.08.2011 Basant Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is successful bidder for lease of land in the auction conducted on 15.6.2010. He further states that entire amount has been deposited, however, possession has not been delivered as yet. He further states that petitioner has moved representations Annexures P-3 to P-6 on different dates, however, no action had been taken thereon by the respondents. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioner had deposited 1/4th of the lease amount i.e. `14,000/- and had never deposited entire amount as per terms and conditions of the auction notice. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/Gram Panchayat states that even `14,000/- deposited by the petitioner had CWP No.1964 of 2011 -2- already been refunded to the petitioner by way of cheque. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although entire amount was not deposited since possession was not delivered, however, petitioner is ready and willing to deposit balance amount. He further states that 1/4th amount i.e. `14,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner, has been sent to the petitioner by way of cheque, however, petitioner did not get the cheque encashed, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that let respondent No.3 decide his representations (Annexures P-3 to P-6) within such time as fixed by this Court. He further states that respondent No.3 may record as to whether petitioner was under legal obligation to deposit entire auction amount and if entire auction amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the time frame of the terms and conditions of the auction, auction shall stand cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that since possession was not delivered, therefore, petitioner was advised not to deposit entire amount of the auction. Be as the case may be, respondent No.3 is directed to take decision on the representations (Annexures P-3 to P-6) within 30 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. While deciding the representations (Annexures P-3 to P-6) respondent No.3 shall also record as to whether as per the terms and conditions of the auction, petitioner was supposed and duty bound to deposit entire auction amount and non-deposit thereof would render the auction in nullity. Respondent No.3 shall also record as to whether `14,000/- CWP No.1964 of 2011 -3- deposited by the petitioner has been refunded to the petitioner. If respondent No.3 comes to the conclusion that petitioner was never advised not to deposit entire amount for want of possession then respondent No.3 shall pass such orders which he deems fit to take appropriate legal steps against the petitioner for making false and incorrect statement that he was advised not to deposit entire auction amount. Petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge August 25, 2011 R.S.