RAM PHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Are the petitioners entitled to the refund of the money deposited by them at the time of the auction of the plots along with interest? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these four petitions. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in C. W. P. No. 1688 of 2000 (Ram Phal v. State of Haryana. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The respondents issued a notice for the auction of various sites at different places in the State of Haryana for use as shops and booths. On August 3, 1998 the sites for the construction of booths in the vegetable market at Samalkha were auctioned. The pe-titioner was the highest bidder for plot No. 230. He had offered a price of Rs. 4,30,000/-. He had deposited 25% of the amount viz. Rs. 1,07,500/- at the spot. About more than 8 months later the Market Committee, Samalkha, issued letter of allotment in favour of the petitioner. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P2 with the writ petition. In this letter it was inter-alia mentioned that the "allotment is subject to the outcome of the decision of C.W.P. No. 11880 of 1998". This condition was imposed in pursuance to the communication from the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board dated March 31, 1999. A copy of this communication is at Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. On receipt of the letter the petitioner sent a representation dated May 24, 1999 by registered post. It was inter-alia averred that at the time of auction, no condition regarding the pendency of C.W.P. No. 11880 of 1998 had been announced. The petitioner requested that complete particulars regarding the writ petition may be conveyed. It appears that no reply was sent to this letter by the respondents. The petitioner then sent a communication dated June 23, 1999. In this letter he referred to certain earlier communications received/sent by him prior to the representation dated May 24, 1999. He pointed out that the letter dated April 20, 1999 had been received by him on May 17, 1999. He had received no reply to his letters dated May 10 and May 24, 1999. Keeping in view the circumstances, the offer made vide allotment letter dated April 20, 1999 was not acceptable to him "due to insertion of the new clause at part No. 20 which was not introduced at the time of the auction". On this basis, he asked for the refund of the earnest money viz. Rs. 1,07,500/- along with "prevailing interest at the earliest". A copy of this communication was also sent to respondent No. 2.

(3.) More than 5 months later, on October 8, 1999 the 3rd respondent sent a communication informing the petitioner that the bidders do not have the "right to claim refund of the bid cost deposited .............. along with interest". On receipt of this letter, the petitioner served a legal notice on the respondents for the refund of the money along with interest. Having received no reply, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition.