GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on 15th October, 1968 agricultural land measuring 3 kanals 15 marlas comprised in plot No. 294, Basti Seikh, Jullundur, was put to open auction and petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 4150/- against the reserve price of Rs. 3750/- as fixed by the authorities. The property was originally evacuee property and the same was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'Act') before the auction. The petitioner deposited the amount prescribed at the fall of the hammer. The Managing Officer vide note dated 27th January, 1970 (Annexure P-1) reported that the price fetched by the auction bid was low and therefore recommended that the bid to rejected. Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 6th February, 1970 rejected the bid. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur who declined to interfere on the ground that appeal in such cases lies before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner filed petition under Section 24 of the Act before Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Jullundur, who dismissed the same. The petitioner thereafter field revision petition before respondent No. 2 whovide his order dated 18the September, 1979 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the same in limine. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders to the authorities through the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. Bahl, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in public auction held on 15th October, 1968 the petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder and immediately on fall of the hammer, the petitioner deposited Rs. 860/- being prescribed percentage amount. The highest bid of Rs. 4150/- was much more than the reserve price i.e. Rs. 3750/- which was provisionally accepted but the respondents in an arbitrary manner have rejected the same without intimation to the petitioner as required by mandatory provision of Rule 90(2) of he Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken recourse to law but to no avail. Mr. Bahl has further contended that the auction-bid can be cancelled only if the same was conducted contrary to the rules. But in this case, the auction had been conducted according to the prescribed rules. But in this case, the auction had been conducted according to the prescribed rules. The highest bid given by the petitioner should have accepted by the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the competent authority had the discretion to confirm or reject the highest bid offered by the petitioner without assigning any reason. Respondent No. 3 therefore rightly refused to accept the highest bid of the petitioner, vide order dated 6th February, 1970. It was further stated in the written statement that it was not obligatory on the part of respondent No. 3 to have afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before rejecting his highest offered bid.