VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. K. P. Upadhayaya, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner herein challenges the citation and recovery certificate issued against him for recovering an amount of Rs. 1,10,480/-. Following facts will clarify the controversy involved : A notification was issued for holding auction regarding forest crops including 248 mango trees, 25 Naspati trees, 12 guava trees and 13 Leechi trees of Bahadrabad Baghin survey No. 1 and 2 of lot number 61 for the year 1993-94. The petitioner's case is that auction for that purpose was held on 15-3-1994 wherein, he was the highest bidder for the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. According to the petitioner, the condition of the auction required the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- alongwith the prescribed security amount and Income Tax payable immediately on the closing of the bid, that is on the same day when the bid was finalized and the balance amount was to be deposited within a period of one month therefrom. The condition No. 2 as pointed out before us and not contested by the other side in Hindi reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted....Ed.)

(3.) The petitioner immediately after the bid was finalised made payment of the sum of Rs. 13,900/- on the same day in compliance of the above condition No. 2. However, to his dismay, when the petitioner went for taking the crop, he found some other contractor, who was claiming that he was one in whose favour the auction was struck. According to the petitioner, the calculation of Rs. 13,900/- was also made by the Government officer, who held the auction and it was on his direction that he had paid Rs. 13,900/- vide receipt No, 80 of Book No. 842. The petitioner has also filed the said receipt before us. The petitioner then contends that after he came to know about the third party interest being created in respect of the lot, he inquired and came to know that re-auction was held for the same lot on 21-3-1994 and the highest bid was for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of one Sudesh Kumar Chauhan and thereafter the said bid was cancelled and again third auction was held on 23-3-1994, where the same Sudesh Kumar offered bid for Rs. 35,000/-, which was accepted. It was pointed out by the petitioner that even that amount of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited in four different receipts of 18-4-1994. Therefore, the petitioner questions all this and suggests that if that facility was given to other bidder, why was he refused that facility. The petitioner has filed those four receipts dated 18-4-1994 before us regarding the same auction. The petitioner then points out that all this was completely lost sight of and there was no question of the petitioner being made liable for the amount, which fell short of the highest bid offered by him i.e. Rs. 1,15,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, suggests that there was some unholy nexus between the Government officer and the person in whose favour the auctions were held on 21-3-1994 and 23-3-1994. The petitioner further submits that there was no question of holding any auction again, particularly when he had made payment of the amount on 15-3-1994 as per the condition No. 2 of the action dated 15-3-1994. He, therefore, challenges the recovery of difference between the highest bid given by him and the accepted bid on 23-3-1994, which is treated as loss to the exchequer.