SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will disposed of C. W. P. Nos. 2543 and 2546 of 1988 involving common question of law and facts. For the purposes of this judgment, fact have been taken from C. W. P. 2543 of 1988 'surinder Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors. '.

(2.) THE petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated !0. 2 1988 copy which of is Annexure P-6 to the petition, vide this order, respondent No. 2, i e the Commissioner, Hissar' Division, Hissar, had ordered re-auction of the property details of which have given in para 2 of the writ petition. The earlier auction dated 27. . 1988 in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

(3.) THE background which led to the filing of the writ petition is that land measuring 8 kanals alongwith plant and machinery belonging, to M/s Anjani Grinding Industries, Hissar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in dispute') was attached under Section 79 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the said Company had failed to repay the loan to respondent No. 6 Respondent No. 6 in order to realize the money from the said Company, had obtained, sanction under Section 75 of the Act for sale of property from the competent authority. Thereafter, on completion of formalities, proclamation for auction of the property in dispute was issued in the Daily Punjab Kesari dated 22. 1. 1988. The auction was conducted on the date fixed and four persons participated in the auction proceedings. The highest bid of Rs. 3 lacs was offered by the petitioner. The total recovery against M/s Anjani Grinding Industries, Hissar, was to the tune of Rs, 4,98,632-86. Thereafter, one Push pa Rani offered to purchase the property in dispute for Rs. 3,60,000/- and bank draft dated February 3, 1988 for Rs. 90,000/- was also sent. Respondent No. ?, Commissioner, Hissar Division, vide impugned order, ordered re-auction of the property in dispute and the draft of Ms. Pushpa was returned to her. Aggrieved against the order of cancellation of bid held on 27. 1. 1988 the petitioner has filed the present writ. The challenge to the cancellation of the earlier bid is on the ground that petitioner was the highest bidder and at the fall of the hammer had paid 1/l0 the bid amount, i. e. Rs. 30,000/- which was duly accepted and the said amount was deposited in the bank by the Tehsildar on 28. 1. 1988 and in pursuance of the auction, respondent No. 4 had intimated the petitioner to take possession of the property in dispute and lock the premises. In view of the facts and circumstances the learned counsel contends that the auction was conducted in terms of conditions of the auction notice, the bid of the petitioner was accepted and 1/10th of the bid money was paid and the petitioner had become the owner of the property in dispute and the same could not be re-auctioned. As such, the order of the Commissioner is arbitrary and against all cannons of justice.