JAISWAL TRADERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the office order no. 953 dated 10th October 2012 issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Ranchi, contained at annexure-6 whereby the Auction Notice No. 9/12-13 has been cancelled.

(2.) According to the petitioner, for auction sale of certain goods lying unused as waste material in the premises of the respondents in Dhurwa, Ranchi, a notice being Auction Notice No. 09/12-13 was issued vide annexure-1 whereunder the reserve price for the goods were fixed at Rs. 10,54,700/- and the bidder was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,63,700/- by way of advance/security money. Thereafter, on 22nd September 2012, by a corrigendum, interested bidders were informed that the reserve price of Rs. 10,54,700/- earlier fixed, has been enhanced to Rs. 13,34,985/- and the advance / security money has also been enhanced to Rs. 3,33,800/-. The terms and conditions of the auction notice are contained at annexure-3. The petitioner participated in the auction by depositing the advance money in the auction sale conducted on 04th of October 2012 in the premises of the respondent no. 5 - Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi where 14 other bidders had also participated. According to the petitioner, auction sale was conducted in the presence of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Ranchi, Office Staff of irrigation Mechanical Division, Ranchi, ASI of Dhurwa Police Station with force and Videographer. The entire auction process was recorded through video camera. The petitioner was declared as a successful bidder by fall of hammer for putting highest price of Rs. 16,14,000/-. The petitioner thereafter deposited the balance bid amount of Rs. 12,80,000/- by a demand draft, for which receipt dated 9th October 2012 was also issued (annexure-4). The petitioner was thereafter asked to deposit the further sum of Rs. 80,700/- i.e. 5% towards value added tax (VAT) which he did by 11th of October 2012 by way of a demand draft. The petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of the auction notice, was required to lift the auctioned material within ten days thereafter, but it is alleged that the respondents did not enable the petitioner to lift the materials and suddenly he was served with an office order dated 19th of October 2012 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 5 informing that the auction notice has been cancelled by the department order dated 18th October 2012 (annexure-6).

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid cancellation order on the grounds that after he was declared as successful bidder and was asked to deposit the VAT amount, the auction sale has concluded and respondents had no basis or reason to cancel the auction sale thereafter and that too without any notice. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valji Khimji and Company vs. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limited and other, 2008 9 SCC 299. It is submitted that this auction sale was not subjected to subsequent confirmation by any authority and even if it was subjected to any confirmation, after deposit of the balance of the bid amount treating him to be the highest bidder and therefore, the auction sale had stood concluded. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents in their counter affidavit had also not been able to make out a case of fraud in the entire process and to enable them to justify their impugned action. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have in their counter affidavit once again tried to make out a stand that the valuation of the goods was not undertaken earlier and after valuation, reserve price was re-fixed at Rs. 39,59,712/ and it has once again been enhanced to Rs. 41,23,712/-. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents themselves are not sure as to the exact reserve price which has been revised at least four times since the first auction notice took place.