LAWS(MPH)-1979-12-7

DULICHAND AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On December 14, 1979
Dulichand Agarwal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHUA flowers belonging to the State were auctioned on 13th September 1972 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh in accordance with the terms and conditions of sale contained in the sale notice Annexure -A. The petitioner was a bidder at that auction and his bide were accepted in respect of nine lots. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the amount of 10% of the bids as earnest money and 25% as first installment as required by the conditions of sale. The said nine lots were therefore re -auctioned. The State started proceedings for recovery of Rs. 29,033.32 as deficiency on re -auction from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the said recovery.

(2.) IT was pointed pout by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mahua flowers ceased to be a specified forest produce under the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, with effect from 12th June 1972, and the auction -sale was, therefore, not in exercise of statutory powers under the Adhiniyam. The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the respondents did not dispute this position.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that It 25% of the price offered by the petitioner in his bids was also not disputed and therefore there was again a non -compliance with condition No.11 of the sale conditions and for this reason also the bid was invalid. In our opinion, this contention is devoid of any substance. Condition No. 11 requires that immediately after completion of the auction the successful bidder should deposit: 25% of the price offered. The words "successful bidder" ¼lQy cksyhnkj 1/2 as they occur in condition No. 11 refer to the bidder whose bid has been accepted because unless a bid is accepted it cannot be said that a particular bidder is a successful bidder. The deposit of 25% of the price offered cannot therefore be taken to be a condition precedent for validity of a bid.