SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is a lady belonging to O. B. C. has challenged in this petition the impugned letter/order dated 29. 9. 93 (Annex. 7 ). THE land in question was initially auctioned on 9. 12. 87 wherein the petitioner's bid of Rs. 18, 100/- was found to be highest which was accepted by the respondent authority by a letter dated 9. 12. 87 (Annex. 2 ). 1/4th of the total amount i. e. Rs. 4526/- was immediately deposited on 9. 12. 87 itself. THE receipt dated 9. 12. 87 is at Annex. 3. THE remaining 3/4th amount of Rs. 13, 575/- was also deposited on 6. 2. 89 vide challan at Annex. 4 as desired by the respondents. Surprisingly, after a period of four years, all of a sudden, the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner by letter dated 1. 2. 93 (Annex. 5) that he propose to re-auction the said land. Somehow or the other that was not materialised. THEreafter on 7. 3. 93, the petitioner made representation (Annex. 6) to the respondents no. 3 and 4 for issuing the sale certificate in respect of the land in question. Surprisingly, the respondent no. 4 issued a letter dated 29. 9. 93 (Annex. 7) notifying the auction sale of land in question which is to be conducted on 6. 10. 93. This has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition.
(2.) IT may be stated that this petition was straightaway admitted by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 5. 10. 93 and notice was ordered to be issued on it and on stay petition also, notice was ordered to be issued making it returnable within two weeks and meanwhile it was ordered that the auction may take place but the bid shall not be finalised. In response to the notice, reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it was categorically stated in para 7 (b) that the land in question was auctioned again on 6. 10. 93 but the highest bid of more than Rs. 18, 100/- (which was offered by the petitioner way back in the year 1987) was not received. It may also be stated that a preliminary objection is raised in the reply affidavit that the impugned letter/order at Annex. 7 is appealable. In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have directed the petitioner to file an appeal and get the matter decided but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner lady, who belongs to O. B. C. , is suffering since 1987 and the fact that though this Court by an interim order permitted the respondents to have the auction of the land but even in 1993, the respondents could not get the higher bid than that of the petitioner made in 1987. Therefore, there is no option for this Court but to interfere with the said order at Annex. 7 in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In my considered opinion, once the sale is complete after the auction then after a period of more than four years, it was not open for the respondents to have the auction of the said land once again. It appears that only with a view to harass the poor petitioner lady, the respondent no. 4 issued the letter dated 29. 9. 93 (Annex. 7) of auctioning her land only because by letter dated 7. 3. 93, she requested the respondents no. 3 and 4 to issue the sale certificate in her favour of the aforesaid land. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned letter/order dated 29. 9. 93 (Annex. 7) is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to issue the sale letter of the land in question in favour of the petitioner within one month of receipt of the certified copy of this order. . ;