LAWS(UTN)-2011-7-33

SARITA KARWAL Vs. MEERUT MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM

Decided On July 07, 2011
SARITA KARNWAL Appellant
V/S
MEERUT MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. C. Kandpal. the learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Kamakshi Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mrs. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. (respondent No. 5) and Mr. Subhash Upadhaya, the learned brief holder for the State of Uttarakhand (respondent Nos. 8 & 9). No one is present for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

(2.) MEERUT Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is a company wholly owned by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This company has a rice mill at village Rohalgi, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil in District Haridwar, which is now located in the State of Uttarakhand. This rice mill ran into losses and, from the record, it reveals that it was closed down in the year 1988-89. The respondents assessed its book value as per the valuer's report at Rs. 10.27 lakhs in the late 1980's. The Board of Directors took a decision initially to lease out the said mill, but did not receive any response and accordingly took a decision on 24th February, 1988 to sell the property. Some efforts were made, but, appropriate offers were not received. The present controversy starts on the basis of the advertisement issued on 22nd May, 1992 in which the petitioner gave a tender of Rs. 12.52 lakhs which was the highest offer.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's offer was the highest and, upon negotiation, it was increased which was duly accepted by the Board of Directors pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee. THE learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of Uttar Pradesh also approved the offer of the petitioner and, consequently, a binding contract came into existence which was required to be executed and since the respondent was dilly-dallying in the execution of the sale deed, the present writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent company to execute the sale deed and complete the formalities for the transfer of the property.