ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner belonging to low income group person had purchased the plot No. 309 Sector I, Mandi Sadulshahar, Distt. Sriganganagar measuring 80 x 90 ft. in auction jointly alongwith three other persons who were joint cobidder i.e. Ram Singh S/o Mewa Ram, Jagan Nath Singh S/o Mansa Ram Soni and Ramesh Kumar S/o Jagannath, which auction had taken place in 1987. That total bid was of Rs. 45,200/ - as per auction sheet dated 18.9.87 (Annex. 1). 1/4th amount of bid money amounting to Rs. 11,300/ - was deposited on 19.8.87. It is stated by the petitioner that as per agreement entered into between the cobidders among themselves, the petitioner was put into possession of his own share. The petitioner had also constructed one Pakka room and one Kacha Room in the year 1989, He has also taken water connection and is residing in the portion for the last seven years. The petitioner submits that he did not receive any communication from the respondents to the fact whether under condition. No. 8(8) of the Conditions of 1973, his auction had ever been rejected by the Chairman of the Committee. It is submitted by the petitioner that he visited the office of Additional Collector -cum -Mandi Secretary in March 1995 for the purpose of depositing the balance amount and only there, he had come to know that his highest bid of dated 18.9.87 had not been confirmed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Sriganganagar. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had not received any communication at all about the non -confirmation of auction bid and on coming to know of such an auction having been taken by respondent No. 2, he had applied for the copy of order dated 21.11.1987 attached as Annex. 3. The petitioner submits that Annex. 3 was never received by him nor it was in the knowledge of petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order Annex. 3 on the ground that it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and further condition No. 8(8) of the Condition of 1973 is violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights as it does not give any guidelines for acceptance of rejection of bid and that powers can be used arbitrarily, violating the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Certain other grounds have also been taken in the writ petition.

(2.) REPLY has been filed on behalf of respondents. The facts are not denied. It is stated that order dated 21.11.87 (Annex. 3) or Annex. R/1 was passed rejecting the auction in favour of the petitioner and he was directed to take his money back because of the reason that his bid had not been accepted and he was conveyed of the decision, the petitioner has no cause of action and writ petition is not maintainable. The first question which arises for determination in whether any order or notice as contained in Annex. 3 or Annex. R/1 was ever received by the petitioner or was ever dispatched by respondents. The notice Annex. 3 is addressed to Jagannath, Ram Singh, Arjun Singh and Ramesh Kumar, residents of Sardulshahar. This notice does not contain or mention any other particulars in the address except the names of parties and the name of city. It is doubtful whether by writing the name of the parties and city, notice can reach the party concerned.

(3.) CONDITION No. 8(8) of the conditions of 1973 provides that result of auction shall be communicated to the Chairman of the Committee who shall pass the final order either confirming or rejecting the bid, the decision of Chairman thereon shall be final. Rule 8(8) is reproduced as under: The result of the auction shall be communicated to the Chairman of the Committee who shall pass final order, either confirming or rejecting the bid. The decision of the Chairman shall be final.