RAMSWAROOP Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SHAMSABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the sanction accorded by the Collector is vitiated and secondly, the condition as regards depositing of Rs. 5,000/ - as earnest money and the premium payable on successful bidding and escalation or enhancement of the rate of premium are onerous.

(2.) IT was also stated that there was no beat of drum, and the auction was not publicised by beat of drum.

(3.) THE petitioner who is an 'ex -Sarpanch is objecting to the auction having himself availed of a shop as back as 1985 on a nominal rent of Rs. 365/ - per month and having challenged the same before this Court by filing writ petition, at the Main seat, at Jabalpur, which was dismissed as not pressed on 24.1.1991 (Annexure P/3). It was dismissed without any cost. Now, this dismissal of the petition was a fact within the knowledge of the petitioner. At least it was expected of him to say so, but on going through the petition this fact has not even been remotely indicated in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was in respect of an earlier auction and not the present one. The subject matter of the petition nonetheless is the same. Be that as it may, the fact remains that having filed a petition in respect of auction proposed earlier by the panchayat, the petitioner having dragged the matter for about 3 years, ultimately got it dismissed as not pressed has again approached this Court challenging auction of shops.