D.L.Mehta. J. - (1.)The petitioner-appellant is a contrator and used to purchase scrap materials sold at railway auctions-The Controller of Stores. Northern Railway. New Delhi, published a public auction of scrap steel rails at Bilara and other places in Jodhpur Division of the Northern Railway. The auction was held at Bilara on Jan. 31, 1967, Pipar Road on Jan. 30, 1967 and at Marwar Bhinmal on Feb. 3, 1967. The terms and conditions of the auction were set out in the said auction notice dated Jan. 18, 1967. The highest bidder was required to deposit 25% of the sale price-on the spot and to pay the remaining amount to the Chief Cashier and Pay Master. Northern Railway New Delhi or Divisional Cashier and Pay Master concerned or the Station Master where there is no Divisional Cashier and Pay Master within seven days from the date of receipt of final acceptance of the bio's. The appellant was the highest bidder in respect of one lot of scrap steel rails sold by auction held at Bilara on Jan. 31, 1967. The appellant save the bid for Rs. 60,680/- and deposited 25% earnest money then and there on the closure of the auction and also deposited the balance 75% of the sale price within the prescribed time. Thereafter, on April 1, 1967. the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway. Jodhpur Division informed the appellant and. other similarly situated auction purchasers that the highest bids given by them for the sale of scrap steel rails were not accepted by the Controller of Stores. Northern Railway. New Delhi and that he had ordered the refund of the earnest money as also the balance of the sale price to the respective auction purchasers. The petitioner -- appellant approached the higher authorities of the Railway at Northern Railway Head-quarters. Baroda House. New Delhi and is said to have been orally assured that his bid would meet the same fate as would be decided by their Lordships of the Delhi High Court in the Writ Petitions filed by M/s. Chain-sukhdass Sohanlal Jain and Abdul Shakoor, in respect of the highest bids Siven by the aforesaid persons for other lots. The appellant approached the General Manager. Northern Railway by means of a representation dated April 3, 1967 and to the Chairman of the Railway Board by a representation dated June 10, 1967 but nothing appears to have turned out of all these efforts.
(2.)On Dec. 21/22, 1967 the Track Supply Officer, Head-Quarters Office, Northern Railway. New Delhi sent pay orders in respect of the refund of the earnest money and the remaining sale price, deposited by seven auction purchasers including the appellant. Vide Annex. 11/1, the appellant accepted the amount of refund under protest. The relevant part of Annex. 11/1 is as under : "As asked. I am sending the receipts duly signed, under protest and have to inform -you that I reserve my rights to proceed for recovery of my losses and damages due to wrongful cancellation of the auction sale." On Jan. 31, 1972. the writ petition filed by M/s. Chainsukhdas? Sohanlal was allowed by a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court and the order of the Controller of Stores. Northern Railway, New Delhi cancelling the auction sale was auashed and directions were issued to deliver the scraps to one of the bidders of the lot who filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. It may he mentioned here that the order by which the bid of the petitioner was cancelled is the same order which was quashed by the Delhi High Court vide its order dated Jan. 31, 1972 passed in Civil Writ petn. No. 374 of 1967 {M/s. Chain Sukhdass Sohanlal v. Union of India. The appellant, thereafter, approached the Controller of Stores vide his representation dated Aug. 14, 1973-It was submitted that the appellant, M/s. Chainsukhdass Sohanlal and Shri Abdul Shakoor stand on the same footing as they participated in the bid under the same public auction notice dated Jan. 18, 1967.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to letter (Annex. 6) dated Feb. 21, 1968 addressed to the Controller of Stores, Northern Railway. New Delhi, Wherein, it was stated that Shri Gulshan Rai. after having heard him in person, assured to deliver the goods purchased by him if the decision of the High Court stands in favour of the purchasers and that his case shall be dealt with (on) the same lines. Learned counsel has further invited my attention-to the letter (Annex. 7) dated Aug. 14, 1973 addressed to the Controller of Stores, New Delhi. In para 6 of the letter (Annex. 7), it has specifically been mentioned that the appellant and two other members of Parliament viz.. Shri N. K. Sanghi and Shri Amrit Nahta approached the then Railway Minister Shri G. M. Poonacha and apprised him of the full history of the case and Shri poonacha after having gone through the entire case felt that the said action taken by the railway for the cancellation of the auction bid was not in consonance with the powers vested with the authority cancelling the said bid- It was, therefore, assured by the Hon'ble Railway Minister that the cases of the remaining bidders shall be decided as per the decision of the Court where some of the purchasers have already approached for legal remedy. In the said letter, the petitioner (appellant) prayed that he is the actual user of the material purchased and therefore, the delivery of the material purchased will considerably help him in the progress of his cottage industries and so, immediate delivery should be made. Learned Counsel has also invited our attention to letter (Annex. 9) dated June 23, 1973 addressed by the Controller of Stores to the S. E. N. (P). Northern Railway, New Delhi. It has been stated in the said letter that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajindar Sachar of Delhi High Court has decided the matter in favour of the writ petitioners in Civil Writ Petn. No. 543 of 1967 ' (Abdul Shakur v. Union of India) by his Judgment dated Mar. 30, 1973 and the Controller of Stores has accorded sanction with the concurrence TA & CAO (Finance) to implement the order of the High Court. It has also been stated therein that the material in respect of lot No. 1/PPR/A/66 auctioned on Jan. 30, 1967 may be authorised to be released to the party after realising costs and Sales Tax etc. as appears to have been refunded by your office. Thus. Learned counsel submits that though the amount of refund was accepted by the writ petitioners who approached before Delhi High Court even then they succeeded and got the delivery in the year 1973 under the orders of the Court.