MOHD HAROON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays a challenge to an order dated 8th January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No.10617/2006 filed by the Appellant.

(2.) The brief facts leading the Appellant to file the writ petition are that he was trading in metal scrap in the name of M/s. Adil Tin Scrap Store and pursuant to an auction notice dated 15th June, 2005 in the leading newspapers, proposing to dispose of different scrap materials including HMS contained in 30 containers by public auction on "As is where is" basis, the Appellant applied for the same. In the auction notice, neither the reserve price nor weight nor quantity was mentioned. He paid the entry fee of Rs.250/- and deposited the refundable security of Rs.20,000/- for participating in the auction. Prior to the auction, the Appellant also inspected the goods. The Appellant participated in the auction and being the highest bidder, his bid for lot Nos.39 and 59 was accepted whereupon he tendered the advance of 30% amounting to Rs.4,55,000/-. According to the Appellant he later on had reasons to believe that the weight of the scrap was not as was orally informed to him by the officers of the Respondent. As weight of the scrap was not reflected in the respective bills of lading and also the Import General Manifest, he approached the custom authorities to know about the valuation of the goods put up for auction under the Right to Information Act vide application dated 20th April, 2006. As the Appellant wrongly mentioned the date of auction, no information was provided. The custom authorities refused to give the information otherwise also and vide letter dated 6 th May, 2006 and 8th May, 2006, the Respondents called upon the Appellant to take delivery of the goods which were auctioned on "As is where is" basis. According to the Appellant he not only lost because the weight of the scrap was far less than was represented to him but was also losing Rs.5,000/- per day on account of ground rent and payment to the transporters, besides, brokerage and huge amount of capital invested in the goods.

(3.) The Appellant thereafter filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.10617/2006 inter alia praying for quashing of the entire auction held on 15th June, 2005 vide lot Nos.39 and 59 comprising of 5 containers of HMS scrap, quashing of old demand raised by the Respondents towards the ground rent and penalty for the three trucks lying loaded in the bonded area at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, refund of Rs.19,17,760/- with interest and refund of Rs.2,70,000/- paid to the transporters with interest. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 8th January, 2010 on the ground that the writ petition involved serious disputed questions of fact, however, gave liberty to the parties to get their disputes adjudicated in the appropriate forums.