The Haryana State Agricultural ... vs Sadhu Ram [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. ...

3. The appellants are statutory authorities under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). A public notice was issued by the office of Market Committee, Panchkula, Haryana, appellant No. 2 inviting traders and general public to purchase commercial sites in an open auction to be held on 8th of July, 2004 in the New Grain and Vegetable Market, Panchkula. By this auction, Shop plots (62 Nos.) and Booth plots measuring 20' X 50' were to be auctioned. On 16th of May, 2003, the High Powered Committee constituted by an office order recommended that the reserve price for a plot measuring 20' X 50' be fixed at Rs. 33,91,391/- which was approved at the level of the Chief Administrator of the Board. However, the reserve price so fixed was neither mentioned in the public notice nor was the same announced before the start of the auction. The auction of the plots was held as per schedule. The respondents were declared to be the highest bidders for the plots who deposited 25% of the bid money as per the requirement of law. On 24th of July, 2004, the auction committee report of the aforesaid auction held on 8th of July, 2004 was put up before the Market Committee, Panchkula, which by a resolution dated 24th of July, 2004 recommended the confirmation of the auction bids and resolved that the approval of the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board be taken under Section 18 of the Act. On 30th of November, 2004, a letter was sent on behalf of the Chief administrator to the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Panchkula by which some discrepancies were conveyed. On 6th of December, 2004, the Executive Officer addressed a letter to the Chief Administrator informing him that the discrepancies pointed out have been attended to and requested for approval. The Chief Administrator, on 15th of December, 2004 conveyed his approval in respect of the bids given for plot No. 1 measuring 20' X 50' and three booths bearing Nos. 149, 150, 152 measuring 12' X 27 ='. The auction of all the other plots was rejected and it was directed to refund the amounts to the respondents and to put the plots in open auction on 20th of December, 2004. On 17th of December, 2004, the respondents received a communication from the Market Committee that since the auction in their favour had not been approved by the Chief Administrator, 25% of the bid money deposited by them was being refunded. The second public auction, as scheduled, was held on 20th of December, 2004, and a price higher than that of the earlier price was fetched from the auction purchasers.

13. Mr. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that his clients were ready to pay the enhanced amounts which were offered by the bidders in the second auction and therefore, in view of this, the decision of the High Court should be upheld with such modification. We are unable to accept this submission of Mr. Patwalia because at the present moment, third party interests have also been created in the matter and the bidders in the second auction were not made parties to the writ petitions.

15. In view of the admitted fact that the money deposited by the respondents with the appellants was refunded to the respondents by account payee cheques which were duly encashed by them and in view of the admitted fact that subsequently, a second auction was held on 20th of December, 2004 in respect of the same plots which were put up for auction on 8th of July, 2004 and in the second auction, some other parties have now acquired interest in the said plots, it was not open to the High Court to direct the appellants, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to allot alternative plots to the respondents only on the ground that the auction dated 8th of July, 2004 could not be cancelled by the Chief Administrator of the Board without assigning any reason and also on the ground that the reserve price was not disclosed in the Public Notice issued by the appellants.

16. In this view of the matter, we are, therefore, unable to sustain the decision of the High Court and accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed and the writ petitions stand rejected. There will be no order as to costs.