KANWARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 is taken on record.

(2.) HEARD Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Shri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel. By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was the highest bidder. He further submitted that bid submitted by the petitioner of Rs. 1,56,000/- was the higher than the other three bidders. It is further submitted that bid was accepted on 23.7.2011 and agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner on 4.8.2011. The application submitted by the respondent No. 5 was not required to be considered since it was not in accordance with Clause 17 of the terms and condition of the auction. He further submitted that as per Clause 17 of the terms and condition, before the bid is accepted, any person could submit 25% more amount of the highest bid. Under clause 17 of the terms and conditions only course open for re-auction is to deposit 25% more amount of the highest bid and only then his application will be accepted. It is submitted that a person who has not participated in the auction inspite of due public notice is not entitled under law to submit any application or offer subsequently thereby disturbing the entire auction proceedings. He further submits that auction was held after due publication of notice in the newspaper in which four persons including the applicant participated and submitted their respective bids. The commissioner has wrongly set aside the auction dated 23.7.2011 in view of the fact that the said auction proceedings were already completed and no person had a right to submit a subsequent bid after the completion of the auction proceedings. In support of his contention he has placed reliance of the judgment in Valji Khimji and Company v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limited and others, (2008) 9 SCC 299.