RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment disposes of C.W.P. No. 14403, 14405, 14743, 15134, 15107 and 1536 of 1990 since common questions of law and facts arise for determination therein. In these writ petitions, challenge has been made to the order of the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula, refusing to grant approval under Section 18 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 , as applicable to the State of Haryana, to the auction of shop sites in New Anaj and Wool Market, Panipat held on March 26, 1990.

(2.) A reference to relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in C.W.P. No. 14403 of 1990 except where otherwise necessary. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are Commission Agents. The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (for short, the Board) offered to sell shop sites in New Anaj and Wool Market Panipat by open auction. The auction was held on March 26, 1990 at 11.00 a.m. The details of sites, including the category, serial number and the general terms and conditions of auction sale were duly published. These are as under :-

(3.) Joint written statement has been filed on behalf of Market Committee, Panipat and the Board, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Panipat for permanent injunction restraining the answering respondents from cancelling the licence issued by the Market Committee, and interfering in their peaceful possession of the shop/site No. 97 New Grain Market, Panipat. This fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition and this per se disentitles them from approaching this Court for the equitable relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The auction sale was subject to confirmation by the Chief Administrator of the Board. The Chief Administrator did not approve the auction sale and directed that 1/4th of the auction money deposited by the petitioners be refunded to them. Cheque bearing No. 0467, dated November 14, 1990, representing the 1/4th amount deposited by the petitioner was issued by the respondent No. 3 but the same was returned with the remarks that "petitioner has refused to accept the same." They petitioners neither applied for transfer of possession of the shop site to them nor it was ever delivered to them. Similar deference was taken in the civil suit filed by the petitioners. Since the bid of the petitioners was not accepted, no legal right accrued to them to continue their business in the disputed shop sites. The possession of the petitioners, if any, is unauthorised and illegal. Construction, if any, made by them is also unauthorised. The auction sale was not approved by the Chief Administrator of the Board as he found that there had been pooling with regard to every shop site by 4/5 persons and that the highest price offered by the bidder was quite less. The total number of plots offered for sale in auction were 30, out of which 10 were auctioned. The persons who had actually deposited the earnest money were 25 and the persons who participated in the auction were only 22. The reserve price of the shop was fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- whereas the highest bid had gone upto Rs. 2,40,000/-. This was the result of pooling. Auction sale of similar types of plots was conducted after a gap of 6/7 months of the auction sale conducted on March 26, 1990 and the highest bid offered was of Rs. 3,65,000/-.