K VENKATANARAYANA Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, had issued a 'Short Sale Notice' of minor Forest produce of Eluru Forest Division for sale of usufruct of cashew-nut lease units, for the year 1991 at 11.00 a.m. on 12-12-1990. Petitioner was the successful bidder for the year 1989-90. The sale was to be conducted publicly. Petitioner and 13 others are alleged to have participated in the sale. The bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 73,000.00 for item No. 5 and Rs. 33,000.00 for item No. 6, since he was the highest bidder. He had deposited an amount of Rs. 33,000.00. The balance amount due out of the total bid amount of Rs. 1,06,000.00 was to be paid after further instructions. On 5-1-1991 petitioner received a resale notice dt. 28-12-1990 for the same items, which are however renumbered as Items Nos. 2 and 3, instead of 5 and 6. The sale was proposed to be conducted on 17-1-1991. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 350/91 and the same was allowed on 26-2-1991. Thereafter, the respondent issued a further notice dt. 10-3-1991 proposing the auction at 10.00 a.m. on 28-3-1991. Petitioner submits that the reason mentioned in the resale is inadequate, that the rejection of his highest bid which was knocked down in the public sale is arbitrary and therefore the proposed resale on 28-3-1991 cannot be conducted. He also submits that the proposed resale is against the observations of the Supreme Court in M/s Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., 1990 (3) SCC 280, to the effect that - "Where the highest offer is rejected, the reasons sufficient to indicate the stand of the appropriate authority should be made available and ordinarily the same should be communicated to the concerned party unless there be any specific justification not to do so." Petitioner refers to the observation of my learned brother Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. in W.P. 350/91 that - 'In the instant case, no justification is pleaded by the respondent for not communicating the rejection of the highest bid of the petitioner."

(2.) In the present notice dt. 10-3-1991, the following reason is mentioned :

(3.) Petitioner participated in the auction pursuant to a sale notification. Condition No. 15 of that notification provides that- "The Divisional Forest officer or the officer conducting the sale/ tender as the case may be shall have the power without assigning any reason to (a) Prohibit any one from bidding/tendering at any stage of the tender auction (b) Reject the highest or any bid/tender (c) Accept the highest or any bid/tender (d) Sell the units separately or club together more than one units or sell them after so arranging as he may consider necessary (e) Announce any new condition or conditions at the commencement of the auction (f) open any new series other than mention-ed Schedule 'A' attached here to and sell coupes during a year. Condition No. 21 provides that-