SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Annex. 11) dated October 25, 1988 of the Municipal Boar, Chittorgarh (respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner's bid for purchasing the plot No. 72, Kumbha Nagar Housing Scheme. Chittorgarh in the auction sale held on September 18,1981 was not accepted on account of her failure to deposit the remaining 3 4th account of Rs. 14,000/- and her l/4th amount of Rs. 4,675/-has been forfeited and also the order (Annexure 13) dated February 19,1990 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur rejecting the petitioner's revision against the order Annexure 11, for holding that imposition of penalty and interest on the 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- was illegal and without jurisdiction and for directing the respondent no. 3 to accept the remaining amount of Rs. 14,000/- and to execute the lease- deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot.

(2.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of depositing l/4th amount of the bid the petitioner was told that demand notice for the remaining amount of the bid be issued after the approval of the auction proceedings by the competent authority, she was never served with notice requiring her to deposit the remaining amount of the bid i. e. Rs. 14,000/-despite repeated requests and without it, the allotment of the said could not be cancelled. He further contended that the respondent no3 demanded interest @ 15% and penalty besides 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- through Ms notices, Annexure 5 Jan. 3,1986, Annexure 6 dated February 27, 1986 and Annexure 8 dated April 5, 1986 and under the rules existing of the date of the auction interest @ 15% could not be levied and penalty imposed. He lastly contended that the findings recorded in the said orders Annexure 11 and 13 that the demand notice (Annexure 9) dated January 15,1982 was duly served upon the petitioner are perverse.

(3.) NOTICE Annexure 9 has also been attacked on the ground that it was despatched on January 15, 1982 while it was signed on January 16, 1982. It seems that the concerned clerk put the notice before the Executive officer for his signature after entering the despatch no. and date in it. No rule has been pointed out which prohibited such a practice.