LAXMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 27.05.2008, Annexure P-7, whereby highest bid of the petitioner in respect of 5 acres of land was not approved and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been refunded.

(2.) THE Irrigation Department, Government of Haryana, in its meeting dated 22.12.2000 decided to dispose off surplus land and buildings of District Sirsa. 45 number of sites were to be disposed off through public auction as per office order dated 19.06.2001. The auction of the disputed laud was conducted on 13.08.2003 and the petitioner was the highest bidder who has given bid of Rs. 3,20,000/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the auction money on she same date. The Superintending Engineer sought approval of such auction but the same was declined vide communication dated 27.05.2008 and the amount deposited by the petitioner was returned through cheque. The petitioner claims that since he is the highest bidder, the respondents are bound to accept the highest bid and mere inadequacy of the price is no ground of not confirming the sale. Reliance was placed upon Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Surja Ram v. State of Haryana, 1984 P.L.J. 282. The said judgment is to the effect that it is open to the respondent not to accept the highest bid but reasons are to be recorded. That was a case where the evacuee property was put to sale by the Settlement Commissioner. The Rules for sale of surplus rural evacuee property were being considered by the tilt Full Bench where it was found that the Settlement Commissioner has an absolute power not to accept the highest or other bid but that does not absolve the authority of not recording the reasons.

(3.) IN terms of Rules of Business of the State Government, the action on behalf of the State Government is required to he taken by the Secretary to the Government. Therefore, unless decision of sale or property is taken at the level of Secretary to the Government, no right accrues to the petitioner. Still further, in Laxmikant and others v. Satyawan and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2052, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the highest bidder has no right to seek confirmation of the sale. It was held to the following effect : "From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had acented to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to it itself to reject the highest orany bid. This Court has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa, 1971(3) S.C.C. 153 : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 733; State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972)2 S.C.C. 36 : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1816; Union of India v. M/s. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (sic), A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2295 and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, (1982)2 S.C.C. 365. It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the condition of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held."