RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An open auction for a contract to collect octroi was held by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar (for short the corporation) on 21-4-1999 for the period from 15-5-1999 to 14-5-2000. As per the terms and conditions of the auction every bidder was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs with the corporation by way of demand draft or cash as earnest money . The reserve price fixed for the auction was Rs. 48 crores. The grievance of the petitioner is that the corporation did not accept the earnest money from him and he was not allowed to participate in the auction. He has further alleged that none of the bidders deposited the earnest money at the time of the auction and that respondent No. 3 who has been awarded the contract deposited the earnest money on the day folllowing the date of auction and the receipt was issued to it on 22-4-1999 after closure of the accounts in the evening. It is also alleged in the petition that earnest money received from respondent No. 3 was deposited-by the corporation in its Bank account on 23 -4-1999. It is contended that the contract had been awarded to respondent No. 3 in a clandestine manner and that it is evident from the fact that against the reserve price of Rs. 48 crores a bid of Rs. 48,09 crores was accepted.

(2.) In response to the notice issued to the respondents, they have filed their written statements emphatically controverting the avements made in the petition. It is pleaded that the auction was held in a fair and reasonable manner in accordance with the procedure and guidlines prescribed by the State Government and that no irregularity was committed as alleged by the petitioner. It is admitted that reserve price fixed by the State Government for the auction was Rs. 48 crores and that the highest bid being of Rs. 46.09 crores as given by respondent no. 3 had to be accepted though after seeking approval of the State Government. The case of the respondents is that every bidder was required to deposit Rs. 15 lacs at the time of the auction and only those who had deposited the earnest money were allowed to participate therein. It is averred that the petition did not deposit the earnest money in spite of repeated announcements made in this regard by the officers of the corporation conducting the auction and it is for this reason that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the auction and that he did not raise any objection at the spot at the time of the auction even though he was present.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties at length and find no merit in the writ petition. When this case came up for hearing on 3-5-1999 the petitioner stated that he was willing to take the contract and offered Rs. 48 crores and one lac for the same. In order to show his bona fides he undertook to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs in the Court which he did on the following day. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the auction held on 21-4-1999 was a farce and no bidder deposited the money at the time of the auction and that the petitioner was arbitrarily prevented from participating in it. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that repeated announcements had been made on public address system calling upon the bidders to deposit the earnest money and that the auction was delayed by about fifteen minutes to enable the participants to deposit that amount but only five persons deposited the amount who alone were allowed to participate. During the course of arguments, we were informed that under the instructions of the State Government the entire auction proceedings were video-taped and a request was made that the Court should view that tape to verify if the allegations as made by the petitioner were correct. In pursuance to our directions issued on 3-6-1999 the parties made arrangements for the Court to v lew the video film and we have seen the same and find that the auction was fairly, properly and transparently conducted in the presence of the senior officers of the corporation including its Commissioner, Mayor and Joint Commissioner. Before the commencement of the auction an officer deputed for the purpose read out the terms and conditions of the auction and repeatedly announced that those who wanted to participate in it should deposit the earnest money of Rs. 15 lacs. Admittedly, the petitioner was present at the time of the auction but he did not deposit the earnest money. Not only this, all those who were present at the time of the auction had raised a number of objections which were replied to by the officers of the Corporation but no one including the petitioner objected that they were not being allowed to deposit the earnest money. Such an objection could not indeed be raised because several announcements were being made for the deposit of the earnest money by those who wanted to bid in the auction. After the conclusion of the auction the participants other than respondent No. 3 whose bid has been accepted were told to take their earnest money back. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the petitioner did not deposit the earnest money and it is for this reason he did not participate in the auction for which he has himself to blame. Again, there is nothing on the record to show that respondent No. 3 did not deposit the earnest money before the commencement of the auction as alleged by the petitioner. The Mayor of the corporation, on the other hand, has filed the written statement stating that five parties including respondent No. 3 had deposited the earnest money before the commencement of the auction though the receipts were issued subsequently. We are, therefore, satisfied that this respondent had deposited the earnest money and fulfilled the conditions precedent for participating in the auction. No fault can thus be found with the action of the respondents in this regard. In view of our finding that the petitioner did not deposit the earnest money, he has no locus standi to challenge the auction and the contract awarded to respondent No. 3. The petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.