R.P.SINGH. J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the sale of the petitioner's Cold Storage in pursuance of tender notice dt. 22-12-87 and further prayed that the execution of the sale deed on 22-2-88 in pursuance of the said notice may be cancelled and may not be given effect to.
(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner who is a registered firm carrying on the business of running of Cold Storage and Ice Factory at Gola Bazar, Gorakhpur, took a loan of Rs. 9,11,000/- from the U.P. Financial Corporation, Respondent 1 in the year 1978 which was to be paid in instalments. However, due to non-supply of electricity to the cold storage the petitioner is alleged to have suffered huge loss as the potato stored in the cold storage was damaged and the petitioner had to pay a huge compensation to the farmers who had stored their potato in the cold storage. It is alleged that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 8 lacs between the period 1978 to 1987 towards the loan taken by him in instalments and since the petitioner could not pay the remaining instalments in time due to huge losses suffered by him, an advertisement was made in 'Dainik Jagran' on 22-12-87 and in 'Aaj' on 29-12-87 inviting tenders for the sale of the petitioner's cold storage and the offer was to reach the Regional Manager of U.P. Financial Corporation, Gorakhpur on 4-1-88 up to 3 P.M. The petitioner on coming to know of the intended sale made a representation to the State Minister for Small Scale Industries, U.P. that the petitioner had suffered huge losses on account of the potato being damaged due to non-supply of the electricity as a result of which the petitioner had to pay huge compensation to the farmers and hence prayed that the cold storage may not be put to sale and some time may be granted to pay up the remaining dues upon which the Minister concerned on 27-12-87 ordered the Regional Manager Respondent 2 to stop putting the cold storage to auction and directed that the instalments may be rescheduled to enable the petitioner to pay up the arrears. The Minister concerned on 2nd January, 1988 also wrote to the Managing Director of the U.P. Financial Corporation that in view of the huge losses suffered by the petitioner and payment of compensation to the farmers, the sale of the unit may be stayed. The Minister concerned again wrote a letter on 23-2-1988 addressed to the Managing Director of the Corporation that in spite of his letter not to auction the petitioner's cold storage, the same has been sold and directed him not to confirm the sale till 31-3-1988 as the petitioner wants time till that date to pay up the arrears of instalments due. However, in spite of the repeated directions of the Minister concerned, Respondents 1 and 2 accepted the tender of Respondent 3 for sale of the petitioner's Durgesh Cold Storage for a sum of Rs. 16 lacs and confirmed the sale on 22-2-88.
(3.) The petitioner's case is that in spite of the direction issued by the Minister concerned the petitioner's cold storage was sold by inviting tender in undue haste in spite of repeated orders passed by the Minister concerned to give the petitioner time till 31-3-1988 to pay up the instalments due and that the only tender received for sale of the petitioner's cold storage was of respondent No. 3 and that the cold storage was not sold by open auction in which higher bids have been made by the public as the property was worth about Rs. 60 lacs and had been sold to Respondent 3 for a song even without intimating the petitioner of the offer of respondent No. 3 as the petitioner could be given an opportunity to make the payment of the instalments due to avoid sale of the cold storage. Under the terms of the tender accepted, the Respondent 3 was to deposit only half the amount that is Rs. 8 lacs and the remaining half amount was to be paid by respondent No. 3 in three years by paying in six equal half-yearly instalments and thus the sale deed was executed even without payment of the entire amount by Respondent 3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's cold storage should have been sold by public auction which ensures participation of the general public in the auction as a result of which the property fetches the highest price and also ensures fairness in the activities of the public authorities in selling the property. The petitioner's case is that in the present case the sale has been made by inviting tender in undue haste in which the only tender negotiated was that of Respondent 3 and even though the property was a very valuable property of about Rs. 60 lacs, the same has been sold for a paltry amount resulting in great loss and prejudice to the petitioner.;