DEVENDRA KUMAR PALIWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN auction of a property belonging to the Municipal Council, Agar, respondent No. 3, was held on March 22, 1998. In the aforesaid auction, respondent No. 5 Mahesh Kumar Paliwal, participated as a bidder. The bid offered by respondent No. 5 for an amount of Rs. 2,22,222/-, being the highest bid, was accepted. However, no amount, whatsoever, was ever deposited by respondent No. 5 in pursuance to the acceptance of his bid by the Municipal council Even the notices served by the Municipal Council (Annexures R-3/1 to r-3/4) on respondent No. 5 remained un-responded.

(2.) HOWEVER, on June 1,1999, after expiry of a period of more than one year, respondent No. 5 filed an application before the Municipal Council, with a plea that in the auction proceedings, he had merely participated as a representative of the petitioner Devendra Kumar Paliwal and had no personal interest, either in the bid or in the proceedings, and therefore, he be permitted to make a deposit of the amount at that stage on behalf of the petitioner. The aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 5 was even allowed by the municipal Council by passing a resolution dated July 7,1999. He was permitted to make a deposit of the bid amount. In pursuance to the said resolution dated july 7, 1999, it was the petitioner Devendra Kumar Paliwal, who actually deposited the amount on August 7,1997 (sic: August 7,1999 ). Thereafter even a written agreement was executed between the petitioner Devendra Kumar paliwal and Municipal Council, Agar with regard to the sale of the property. The petitioner was even granted a permission to construct a building by the municipal Council on October 29,1999 (Annexure P-8 ).

(3.) HOWEVER, it appears that in purported exercise of his powers under section 323 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') the Collector, Shajapur passed an order dated October 9, 2000 whereby taking a note of the fact that the procedure under Section 109 (3) of the act had not been followed before disposing of the property of the Municipal council, the auction proceedings with regard to the property in question were cancelled. The Municipal Council was directed to issue a formal communication in this regard. Consequently, a communication dated November 3, 2000, annexure P- 10, was issued by the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal council, intimating the petitioner the factum of cancellation of the auction and also bringing to his notice the order of the Collector.