AMARNATH PANDEY Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ or writs in the nature of certiorari to quash the sale certificate dtd. 20/5/2014 issued in favour of the petitioner as he was declared as successful bidder in an e-auction conducted by the respondents-bank on 29/3/2014 for the sale of immovable property consisting of 200 decimals of land in Mouza Durga bearing plot no. 3120, Khata No. 17, P.S. No. 49 in the district of Bokaro.

(2.) The facts of the case are mostly not in dispute. The petitioner is a businessman. He, in response to the e-auction conducted by the Bank of Baroda on 29/3/2014 for sale of immovable property consisting of 200 decimals as described above, participated in the e-auction process. He deposited sum of Rs.64,000.00 on 25/3/2014, as a pre-requisite condition for participation in the e-auction. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder and advised to deposit a sum equal to 25% of the total bid value of Rs.6,60,000.00 immediately. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.1,65,000.00 through RTGS on 2/4/2014. A letter of demand was issued by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda on 10/4/2014 for depositing the remaining amount of Rs.4,31,000.00 on or before 23/4/2014 i.e. equivalent of 75% of the sale of the auction price less the EMD amount. The petitioner complied the instructions given by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda and paid the remaining amount on 21/4/2014 whereas, the deadline was 23/4/2014. After full payment of the tendered money the Bank of Baroda issued sale certificate regarding sale of land through e-auction in favour of the petitioner on 20/5/2014 and further gave commitment to the petitioner that very soon the sale deed for land in question will be registered in his name and all documents related to the land will be handed over to him at the earliest. The petitioner after issuance of sale certificate and thereafter failure on the part of the Bank to execute the sale deed, sent letters to the Chief Manager on several occasions but, it yielded no result, hence the writ petition was filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed in this case.