(1.) THOUGH this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking quashment of the public auction conducted by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in respect of plots No. E-3/4, E-3/115 and E-5/5 situated at Mahaveer Nagar, Arera Colony, Bhopal held on 5.8.2005. The petitioner stated that pursuant to the public notice issued by Collector, Bhopal proposing auction of various plots situated at Mahaveer Nagar, Arera Colony, he deposited security amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for purchase of each plot in which he was interested. He alleged that though the auction of each plot was to be done separately on that date but the auction was conducted on different plots at one point of time. As a result of which he and many others could not participate in the auction of all the plots.
(2.) IN respect of auction of plot No. E-5/5 in which he could participate he alleged that though he was ready and willing to pay Rs. 1.39 crores as sale price for the said plot No. E-5/5, still the auction was finalized in favour of the sixth respondent for Rs. 1.34 crores, thereby the government was put to loss by the Auction Officer. It is further contended that immediately after the said auction he submitted an objection to the Auction Officer and requested for re-auction of said plot No. E-5/5, but no heed was paid to his objection. It is thus contended that the auction process being arbitrary and having caused loss to the public ex-chequer, the same be quashed. Respondents 1 to 5 and respondent No. 7 have denied the contentions raised by the petitioner through their reply and applications for vacating the interim stay order. It is stated that the proceedings of the auction (Annexure R-2) demolishes the petitioner's contention that the auctions of all the plots were held at one point of time at different portions of the area which was to be auctioned.
(3.) IT is further stated that the said objection was decided by the Auction Officer vide proceedings recorded on 5.8.2005 itself. It was observed by the Auction Officer that the highest price offered was of sixth respondent (Rs. 1.34 crores) and inspite of repeated efforts no bidder offered more amount than Rs. 1.34 crores and accordingly, it was finalized. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in case of Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [(1993) 1 SCC 71], M/s. Star Enterprises and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others [(1990) 3 SCC 280], Divya Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and others (AIR 2000 SC 2346) and N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others (AIR 1995 SC 423) contended that the power possessed by the public authorities have to be used in public good. It is their duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair-play in action.