RINGU RADHE Vs. VIJAY BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner contended that pursuant to a sale notice (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued by respondent No.2, on behalf of respondent No.l, and published in the newspaper namely, 'The Arunachal Times dated, 19th Jan., 2012 in respect of public auction of 7 Nos of Tata Sumo vehicles, the petitioner I participated in the public auction held on 27.1.2012 at 4.00 PM in the office chamber of the respondent No.2, and for the vehicles in item No.2 (Tata Sumo | Trekker: AR 01 -C-3311) of the sale notice, he offered a price of Rs. 30,600 and for the vehicle in item No.3 (Tata Sumo Trekker No. AR 01-C-3313) of the j sale notice, he offered a price of Rs. 15,000. While participating in the public auction in respect of those two vehicles mentioned in item Nos 2 and 3, he also deposited Rs. 5,000 towards earnest money for each of the item. He was the only bidder for those two vehicles and, therefore, his offer was supposed to be accepted by respondents but the respondent No.2 by a letter dated 21.2.2012 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) intimated the petitioner that the price offered by him was not acceptable to the Bank and, therefore, he was requested to I collect the earnest money of Rs. 5,000 each of those two items of vehicles.

(2.) Respondents contended that the vehicles were put in public auction for ' sale with a view to obtain maximum price for the purpose of liquidating the outstanding dues of the borrower/defaulter and no reserve price was mentioned in the notice since it was not mandatory. Public auction was invited with a view to protect the interest of defaulting borrowers who had taken loan from the Bank and purchased the vehicles. The approved valuer of the Bank fixed reserve j price of the vehicles which was kept in the official record and that the approved valuer of the Bank fixed a price of Rs. 96,000 for each of those vehicles for which the petitioner participated in the auction bidding. Since the price quoted by the petitioner was abnormally below than that of the price valued by the Bank authority, the offer made by the petitioner could not be accepted and the petitioner was immediately informed by writing letter dated 21.2.2012 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). No fundamental or legal right of the petitioner was infringed by rejecting the offer made by the petitioner and the writ petition, therefore, is without merit and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel, Mr. T. Son for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mrs S. Nag for the respondents.