RAJENDRA CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has not filed the return and the reply despite seeking opportunities on three occasions, i.e. 2.2.1994, 23.2.1994 and 28.3.1994. The respondent is the authority locally based and despite the service, and writings by the office of the Additional Advocate General, to the respondent, the respondent has not cared to file the reply or the return.

(2.) THE respondent had auctioned the quarry lease on 9.3.92 and the petitioner being the highest bidder had deposited an amount of Rs. 27,300/ - on 9.3.92 itself, on the assurance given by the respondent to the petitioner that there was absolutely no dispute about the quarry lease which was to be auctioned. But later on, it was found that there was already an order of injunction against the respondent passed by the Court of Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 8A/91 after hearing the counsel for the respondent bipartite, directing the respondent to maintain the status quo with regard to the quarry lease. The order was passed on 28.2.92 and the next date was fixed for the filing of the reply by respondent as 18.3.92 but in the meantime, without caring for the order, the respondent put the lease to auction on 9.3.92, when in view of the order of the Civil Court, it was not open to the respondent to auction the quarry lease.

(3.) AS such, if the petitioner participated in the auction and deposited the amount, the amount deposited by him could not be forfeited as the auction itself was not valid and was held in the breach of the order dated 28.2.92 passed by the Civil Court.