- (1.) HEARD Shri Sandeep Shukla holding brief of Shri Chandan Sharma appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) AN advertisement dated 11.04.2012 was published by the office of the District Magistrate for auction of 25000 cubic meter Red Silica Sand on 18.04.2012. The only condition contained in the advertisement is that those desirous of participating in the auction have to deposit a demand draft of Rs.4,80,000/ - as earnest money drawn in favour of District Magistrate, Fatehpur one day before the date fixed for auction and obtain a token for participating therein. Petitioner being desirous of participating in the auction, deposited a demand draft for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/ - on 17.04.2012. He was allotted Token No. 7. The auction, as scheduled, was held on 18.04.2012. The bid of the petitioner was for a sum of Rs.7,52,00,000/ -. The highest bid was offered by Shri P.K. Gupta, which was for a sum of Rs.10,15,00,000/ -. Bid of Shri P.K. Gupta being the highest, the auction was settled in his favour. Petitioner alleges that on the same very date, she inquired about refund of earnest money and was informed that the same will be refunded after execution of the lease deed. However, when the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was not refunded, she made an application dated 07.05.2012 for refund of the draft.
(3.) PETITIONER has asserted that through an advertisement published in News Paper dated 15.05.2012, she came to know that the earnest money deposited by her and four other bidders including the highest bidder, who had offered a bid higher than her was forfeited on the ground that despite time allowed, they failed to deposit the amount of bid offered by them. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents alleging that when the highest bidder failed to deposit the amount, offer was given to other bidders and notices were issued to all the participants who had participated in the auction proceedings on 18.04.2012. It may be relevant to reproduce paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, wherein allegation in this regard have been made. "9. That the contents of paragraph no. 12 and 13 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. It is submitted that on the date of auction i.e. 18.04.2012 a list of offers made by persons have been recorded according to their offered amount, in which petitioner's name was also mentioned. On 18.04.2012 one Shri P.K. Gupta offered highest amount amounting to Rs.10,15,00,000/ -, but could not deposited the offered amount and his earnest money has been forfeited after refusal of Shri Gupta the next higher offerer who was at Sl. No. 2 was called, but he too failed to deposit the offered amount and his earnest money was also forfeited. Likewise persons who were at Sl. No. 3, 4 and 5 were called to deposit their offered amount, but none of them deposited the same, therefore, earnest money was also forfeited. It is pertinent to point out here that on 18.04.2012 the highest offerer Shri Gupta offered Rs.10,15,00,000/ -. The time for depositing the money was given to him, but he failed to do so. Thereafter, decision has been taken to inform other offerer who have obtained token and participated in the auction proceeding dated 18.04.2012 and the new date has been fixed as 19.05.2012. On 15.05.2012 the information has been given in the local newspaper and notices were also issued to the participants who were participated in auction proceedings on 18.04.2012. 10. That the contents of paragraph No. 14 and 15 of the writ petition are admitted as stated, hence denied. It is respectfully submitted that when the highest offerer Shri Gupta failed to deposit bid amount, opportunity was provided to other participants after due notice and petitioner was also offered to deposit her offered amount, but she failed to do so, thereafter, earnest money deposited by her has been confiscated. 11. That the contents of paragraph No. 16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. It is respectfully submitted that a registered letter/notice has been issued to the petitioner directing her to appear on 19.05.2012 for her offer. Petitioner appeared on 19.05.2012, but did not deposit the offered amount. Apart from registered notice information was also given to her through her mobile. A true/photostat copy of the registered letter, is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. CA - 1 to this counter affidavit. 12. That the contents of paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition are absolutely false, hence denied. It is submitted that vide letter dated 14.05.2012 petitioner was informed to appear for her offer on 19.05.2012 and petitioner appeared on 19.5.2012, but failed to deposit offered amount which was offered by her on 18.04.2012.";