V R NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One V.R. Narasimha Murthy appellant has filed this Writ Appeal No. 16340/99 dated 15-12-2000. The learned counsel for the appellant submits the discretion was exercised in favour of respondent No. 1 considering to be a mandate of this Court and the time was extended and delay was condoned without applying mind. The same is liable to be set aside as the discretion so exercised is not judicious one and the order of the Division Bench dated 28-6-2001 directing the Corportion to reconsider and decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant, needs no interference.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the first respondent petitioner, Harish Kumar, submits that the appellant had also participated in the auction of LPG Distributorship in puruance of the Notification dated 20-2-1999 and was unsuccessful bidder. The first respondent who was the highest bidder had to deposit the remaining amount on or before 30 -3 -1999. On account of illness, he could not deposit the balance amount in time and sought for extension of time but his representation was rejected. Thereafter he filed a writ petition, wherein, the learned single Judge directed the Corporation to consider the representation for extension of time in the light of observations made therein, to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The learned counsel further submits that he was asked to compensate by paying interest on the default amount. Interest was paid. The letter of indent dated 14-2-2001 was issued subject to the order of the Supreme Court. Thereafter respondent No. 1 has already spent substantial amount but on account of Division Bench order dated 28-6- 2001, he has been deprived to start his business. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is within the discretion of the Corporation. This discretion has rightly been exercised as per clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the auction. Further it is also submitted that the appellant who is an unsuccessful bidder who has not challenged the auction dated 17-3-1999 at initial stage, now has no locus standi to challenge. The appellant has no right to be heard by the Corporation as directed by the Division Bench in its order dated 28-6-2001 and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in rejoinder submits that the exclusive jurisdiction to entretain any controversy arising out of this auction is with the Delhi High Court and as such the writ itself is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, the discretion to forfeit his right and money are within the jurisdiction of the Corporation.