K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner challenges the auction that has been confirmed by the Government on 18.02.1986 in respect of Shop Nos.11/12 and 12/22 that was auctioned by the Municipal Committee, Mandi Dabwali. The petitioner makes objection to this order on the ground that the Haryana Committees Management of Properties of Municipal Committee and State Property Rules of 1976, sets out a procedure for alienation and empowers the Deputy Commissioner alone as a sanctioning authority for sale as well as a confirming authority post sales. The contention is that the auction which was held and alleged to have been concluded was not specifically sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner and had not also been confirmed by him in the manner required under the Rules. On the petitioner's objection pointing out to certain irregularities, the Deputy Commissioner himself had passed an order on 30.12.1985 suspending the resolution of the Municipality and invaliding the sale that had taken place. This order purports to be in exercise of his power under Section 246 of the Haryana Municipal Act of 1973. Adverting to the order passed by the Government through the Commissioner and Secretary, Haryana State Local Bodies Department, approving of the sales for Shop Nos.11 and 12 in favour of Darshan Kumar and Kundan Lal for Rs. 16,000.00 and Rs. 36,000.00, it is contended by the petitioner that a power which is required to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be exercised by any higher authority. The order of the Government lacks jurisdiction and hence invalid and inoperative.
(2.) THE defence is entered by the State as well as the persons in whose favour the properties are ultimately sold, namely, R-3 to R-5. It is stated at the outset that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition since he knew about the auction and he had also made the deposit for participation but later made himself scarce. The petition deliberately suppresses the fact of the petitioner's knowledge of the entire proceedings. The issue of locus standi will not assume much significance since the attack is primarily on the alleged violation of the procedure established by the Act and the relevant rules. The case would, therefore, require to be examined from the point of view of whether the auction and sale involved any violation of provisions contained for sale of public properties. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, Mr. Sarin points out that the sanction for the sale emanated from the proceedings of the Government communicated to the Deputy Commissioner by the Commissionercum- Secretary on 12.09.1976 that the plots belonging to the Municipal Committee could be sold by open auction. As a matter of fact, the sales of 19 shops other than the 3 shops which were auctioned subsequently, that is 22 in all, were put up for auction and bids were concluded as found expressed through communication of the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner on 10.03.1977. The sale in respect of shops No.9, 11 and 12 were set aside and advertised for sale again. The contention is that once a sanction had been given by the Government on 12.09.1976 and carried through by the Deputy Commissioners subsequently, it would not require a fresh sanction at every time. The sale held in respect of the shops No.9, 11 and 12 must be taken as a continuation of the power that the Deputy Commissioner had secured from the Government. For our purpose, we still stay confined only to the sales of Shop Nos.11 and 12. I accept the contention of the respondents and hold that there was a valid sanction for the sale. The objection that there was no previous sanction for sale by the Deputy Commissioner cannot, therefore, avail to the petitioner.
(3.) WE must examine the objection that the sale had not been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, then it would require to be seen that after the sale, the Government states that through a memo of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa in office reference No.7- 10/2437/LFA, dated 06.12.1985 sanction from the Government has been sought for confirmation and the proceedings issued by the State through the Commissioner (R-3) records the fact that keeping in view of the report of the Administrator, Municipal Committee and SDO (Civil), Dabwali,the case was recommended for obtaining the approval from the Government to sell the property. It was only pursuant to this that the Government itself has purported to have issued the order which is challenged in the writ petition on 18.02.1986 at the instance of the Commissioner and Secretary. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contests the claim of the Government and says that the document in Annexure R-3 only refers to a report of the Administrator and this cannot be taken as a recommendation going from the Deputy Commissioner. If there is certain doubt under R-3, it could be resolved only through a proper reading of the document along with the impugned order itself. The preamble portion of the impugned communication dated 18.02.1986 reads as a letter "sent by Commissioner and Secretary, Haryana State Local Bodies Department, Chandigarh to the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana State, an endorsement copy of which is sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa-cum-Administrator, Municipal Committee, Mandi Dabwali for necessary action." The communication from the Commissioner has obviously flowed only after the information has come through the Deputy Commissioner's office. It must be merely a matter of internal arrangement that the SDO (Civil) has made a report but the recommendation must be taken to be only at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner. I would, therefore, discard the objection again given on the side of the petitioner that there was no confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner as required under the Rules.;