- (1.) THE writ petitioner challenges the respondent bank's conduct in cancelling a tender and inviting further offers without reference to the petitioner who was the only eligible bidder following the initial invitation. The writ petitioner insists that upon a person being identified as the only eligible or the most qualified bidder, a right vests in such person which cannot be lightly disturbed.
(2.) THE respondent bank, controlled by the government, took possession of an immovable property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and issued a notice under R.8(6) and R.9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner respondent to the sale notice of March 13, 2008, deposited the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- along with his bid and his offer was found to be the only one eligible in terms of the bank's advertisement. On April 22, 2008 the bank acknowledged that the petitioner's was the only qualified bid. The bank's letter contains the following sentence at the end. "We will inform you about the sale of property within 15 days." The sale notice referred to three properties. The last condition of the notice under the heading "Other Terms and Conditions" reads as follows : "8) Authorised officer reserves the right to postpone / cancel or vary the terms and conditions of the tender without assigning any reason." The petitioner made an offer for one of the three properties, the land and building at Mouza Sulandih, JL No. 100, LR Khatian No. 107, 157, 200 and 219, RS Plot No. 31 and 32, PS Neturia, District Purulia. The base price fixed for such property was Rs. 12.50 lakh.
(3.) AFTER the petitioner's bid was found to be the only eligible, he was required to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1,87,500/- which was received by the bank. The letter of April 22, 2008 promised that the bank would inform the petitioner regarding the sale of the property within 15 days but the bank did not get back to the petitioner within reasonable time of expiry of such period. The petitioner caused a notice to be issued by his advocate on September 16, 2008 demanding that the bank promptly execute and register the conveyance in respect of the property. The letter shows that the petitioner's willingness to put in the balance consideration and receive immediate possession of the property. The petitioner threatened that if the bank did not comply with the reasonable request, he would "take legal steps ..... for the specific performance of the contract.";