AMARBIR SINGH WALIA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chandigarh Administration issued an advertisement in the newspapers wherein certain properties i. e. residential as well as commercial sites located in Union Territory, Chandigarh were put to sale by way of public auction which was held on 23-10-2008 (Annexure P-1 ). It included plot No. 1417, Sector 40, chandigarh which is a residential plot measuring 1 kanal. According to Clause 6 of the auction notice, it has been clarified that the auction Officer would be entitled to add or withdraw any site from the auction. The terms and conditions of the auction as available on website have also been placed on record as Annexure P-2. In Clause l (iv), it has been clarified that the Presiding Officer/ estate Officer may withdraw any site or building that may have been put up for auction and he may accept or reject the highest bid without assigning any reason and the decision of the Estate Officer in this regard has to be considered as final. The petitioner participated in the auction and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of bank draft dated 22-10-2008 (Annexure P-3 ). The petitioner was successful as highest bidder for plot No. 1417. Sector 40, Chandigarh for Rs. 2,22,00,000/- against a reserve price of Rs. 1,79,00,000/ -. Accordingly, he prepared demand draft for a sum of Rs. 58,70,000/-in favour of the Estate Officer, U. T. Chandigarh, respondent No. 3 in addition to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- having paid already. The petitioner has kept the demand draft of the balance amount ready for deposit. However, plot No. 1417, Sector 40, Chandigarh was withdrawn from auction on the ground that the price fetched was very low. The petitioner lodged his protest but of no avail. The petitioner sent a representation to the respondents by narrating all the facts with a request to respondent to declare him as successful bidder and accept the balance amount of 25% of the bid amount. He also requested respondents to grant him consequential relief to sell and release plot No. 1417, Sector 40, Chandigarh.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and we find that merely by depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- as participation fee, no right has come to vest in the petitioner to claim that the plot No. 1417, Sector 40, Chandigarh be allotted to him. The petitioner has never been called upon to deposit the balance amount of 25% of the total bid amount. We find nothing wrong with the condition No. 6 in the Auction Notice conferring power on the Estate Officer to add or withdraw any site from auction. It is also pertinent to notice clause 1 (vi) in respect of residential sites which read thus :-"the Presiding Officer/estate Officer may withdraw any site or building that may have been put up for auction and he may accept or reject the highest bid without assigning any reason and the decision of the Estate officer in this regard shall be final. "

(3.) IF the Estate Officer had found that the highest bid of Rs. 2,22,00,000/- given by the petitioner is not acceptable, then the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the estate Officer compelling him to accept the same. The rights of auction-bidder have been considered by the Hon'ble the Supreme court in case of Laxmi Kumar v. Satyawan (1996) 4 SCC 208 : (AIR 1996 SC 2052 ). The aforesaid case is quite akin to the facts of the case in hand as the dispute arose out of auction of a plpt by Nagpur Improvement trust. The auction notice like the case in hand contained a condition that acceptance of the highest bid was to depend upon approval of the Board of Trusties and the decision of the Chairman of the Board of Trusties regarding acceptance or rejection of the bid was to be binding on the bidder. Their lordship referred to various judgments in para 4 and concluded as under :-". . . . . . 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 conditions 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. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4 (3) or under the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public auction was held. "