IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.529/2008. Smt.Sneha Rajawat Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and anr. Date of Order:- 31 January 2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri S.C. Gupta for the petitioner. **** The petitioner by this writ petition seeks to challenge the approval order dated 26/10/2007 passed in favour of Nirmal Kumar Jain and even earlier order passed on 17/18.9.2007. The petitioner’s further prayer is that respondents should accept remaining amount of Rs.71,000/- from the petitioner as interest and in that case, respondents should execute the lease-deed/sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. 2) The facts relevant to the present case are that in auction proceedings petitioner had given highest bid of a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- and accordingly vide order dated 6/5/2003 (Ann.6), bid offer of the petitioner was approved on certain terms & condition. According to those terms & 2 SBCWP NO. 529/2008. conditions, petitioner was required to deposit balance amount of Rs.71,000/- within a period of 15 days failing which, the entire amount of Rs.17,750/- deposited by the petitioner prior to bidding will stand forfeited. The case of the petitioner is that though she was ready to deposit the said amount of Rs.71,000/- and remaining amount within a period of 5½ years as was provided in the approval order but on enquiry it was found that the property was not having proper title therefore, a request was made by the petitioner to the respondents by her letter dated 17/5/2003 but without any response and thereafter in a very surprising manner on 18/6/2007 petitioner was intimated that same property is put for auction. Immediately on receipt of aforesaid intimation vide Ann.9, petitioner made a representation which is otherwise Ann.10 giving out that petitioner was always ready to pay the remaining amount. The aforesaid communication is dated 21/6/2007. 3) The property in question of M/s.Paras Construction was ultimately auctioned by the R.F.C. in favour of Nirmal Kumar Jain vide order dated 26/10/2007 @ Rs.9,31,000/- i.e. at a much higher rate than the offer given by the petitioner i.e. Rs.3.55 lacs. Prior to that, petitioner was informed by the respondents vide their 3 SBCWP NO. 529/2008. letter dated 17/18.9.2007 that due to their default, a sum of Rs.17,750/- stand forfeited and necessary intimation in that regard was given to the petitioner through registered letter dated 1/7/2006. Though petitioner has disputed the fact regarding receipt of the aforesaid communication. The petitioner is not only aggrieved by the auction of the property and acceptance of bid in favour of Nirmal Kumar Jain but also due to discrimination inasmuch as, Nirmal Kumar Jain was given extension of time to deposit the money. 4) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the entire record of the case and find that the property of M/s.Paras Construction was put to auction and ultimately bid of the petitioner was accepted for amount of Rs.3,55,000/- but on certain terms & conditions. The petitioner had thereafter could not comply with Condition No.3 of the approval letter Annexure-6 thus, not only initial amount of Rs.17,750/- stood forfeited and approval granted in favour of petitioner cannot be acted upon in view of violation. In the present matter, petitioner had given bid which otherwise is presumed to have been given after verification of the papers of the property as well as its physical existence. However, facts remain that immediately after acceptance of the approval, petitioner 4 SBCWP NO. 529/2008. made a representation calling for certain condition and clarification and in the garb of that, petitioner had failed to act upon the terms & conditions of the approval order and now when the said property has been put to auction again, petitioner vide her letter dated 21/6/2007, Ann.10 shown her willingness to purchase the property even without questioning the facts as were otherwise questioned by her vide letter dated 17/5/2003, Ann.7. The property has now been auctioned at a very higher rate i.e. the property fetched a sum of Rs.9,31,000/- as compared to the offer of the petitioner i.e. for a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- only. Thus, not only for the reason that petitioner defaulted in carrying out terms & conditions of the approval letter dated Ann.6 but it is further a fact that property has earned quite higher value thus, it cannot now be allowed to be allotted to the petitioner at a lower rate of Rs.3,55,000/- moreso when the conduct of the petitioner is such which does not otherwise entitle her to seek any benefit because at the time when initially approval was given in her favour, she raised various questions vide Ann.7 but thereafter when she could know that property is put to auction again then she agreed to pay the remaining amount after a lapse of several years. 5 SBCWP NO. 529/2008. 5) In view of above, the claim made by the petitioner is not sustainable and otherwise I do not find any discriminatory action of the respondents in favour of Nirmal Kumar Jain so as to quash the approval order issued in his favour by the respondents on 26/10/2007. 6) Thus, I do not find any substance in the claim of the petitioner and for the reasons already given, she is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil