EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUNDARGARH Vs. MOHAN PRASAD SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Sundergarh. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the auction sale of 33.144 M.T. of rod held on 28-2-1979 is valid and binding on the defendants and for such other relief as the court may deem fit and proper in law and equity.

(2.) It is alleged in the plaint that an auction sale notice had been issued by defendant 1 and was published in the daily 'Samaj' for auction of 37.144 metric tons of cut pieces rod and the auction was scheduled to be held on 28-2-1979. The intending bidders were required to deposit Rs. 342/- and accordingly the plaintiff deposited the said amount and participated in the auction. The plaintiff gave the highest bid of Rs. 40,200/- and the auction was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff and he was directed to deposit the earnest money. Accordingly, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 10,050/-. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the authority to accept the balance auction amount and deliver the materials to him, but on some ground or the other, the defendants did not accept the balance money nor did they deliver the goods in question Ultimately, on 16-4-1979, the plaintiff received a letter from defendant 1 intimating that the auction held on 28-2-1979 had been cancelled. The plaintiff then made a representation to defendant 1 with a copy to defendant 2 praying therein for reconsideration of the order, but the said representation having been turned down, the plaintiff served a notice under S.80, C.P.C., and ultimately filed the suit.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement took the stand that the auction bid was subject to condition laid down in the auction sale notice and a highest bidder would not be entitled to have title over the property unless the bid is accepted by the competent authority and the acceptance is communicated to the bidder. It was also averred in the written statement that it was clearly stipulated in the tender notice that the competent authority was entitled to reject the highest bid without assigning any reason therefor. On these averments it was prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed.