LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-138

SHIV SHAKIT METAL IRONE SCARPE DISTRIBUTORS Vs. ARUN KUMAR S O UNKNOWN MUKHYA ABHIYANTA SAJJA AND PARASH NATH VERMA

Decided On September 20, 2005
SHIV SHAKIT METAL IRONE SCARPE DISTRIBUTORS Appellant
V/S
ARUN KUMAR S/O UNKNOWN, MUKHYA ABHIYANTA (SAJJA) AND PARASH NATH VERMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Contempt Petition has been filed, interalia, praying for punishing the opposite parties for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28327 of 2005, and the order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005.

(2.) It may be mentioned that the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28327 of 2005 filed by the petitioner-applicant was disposed of by the said order dated 26.7.2005 in terms of the said order dated 26.7.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005 filed by M/s Dudhiya Iron Scrap Company.

(3.) Relevant portion of the said order dated 26.7.2005 passed in the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005 is quoted below: This Writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that the petitioner was the highest bidder in pursuance of the public auction notice dated 18.10.2004. held on 25.11.2004 but the same has not been granted approval by the Competent Authority which has rather rejected his bid on non-existing ground that the property would have fetched more amount than offered by the petitioner. Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's bid was disapproved on a non-existing ground. A large number of persons have entered into the negotiations with the respondent-authorities and offered higher amount after the auction was over, though the same persons had not given bid to that extent earlier, which was not permissible in law. Hence the order impugned dated 05.03.2005 is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as the bid given by the petitioner required approval of the higher authority and the authority concerned did not approve it on the ground hat the property could fetch a higher amount and that stands fortified since other persons, though did not give the bid for a higher amount, were willing to enhance it substantially at the subsequent stage. Therefore, according to him, no interference is called for. ... Undoubtedly, we do not approve the method adopted by the respondent-authorities to negotiate with any private party after the auction was over but considering the fact that amount offered by them subsequently was much higher than the highest bid given by the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The petition stands disposed of finally with a direction that a fresh notice/re-advertisement be published in the newspapers having wide circulation and the auction may be held in accordance with law but after the auction is concluded, there should be no private negotiation by the authority with any private party. However, if the circumstances so demand, all the bidders should be called for negotiation and there will be no prohibition for the authority concerned to have the reserved price for starting the auction itself. With these observations, the petition stands disposed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.