KESHOTE, J. - (1.) THIS petition, on the face of it, is not only a misconceived, misplaced, frivolous and ill-advised but also an attempt on the part of the petitioner to abuse the process of the court.
(2.) THIS is a case where it comes out from its facts as to how the unscrupulous litigants are frustrating the very purpose and object of sale of the plots by the Jaipur Development Authority. By this way they are creating hurdles in development work which the Jaipur Development Authority wants to undertake by receiving the money by way of sale of plots in auction. THIS petition is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to act contrary to the public interest or to make an attempt to deprive the public of the Jaipur City to get the amenities which are being provided by the J. D. A. The facts of the case are that in a daily newspaper "rajasthan Patrika" dated 5. 8. 1989 the Jaipur Development Authority issued a notice for auction of the plots both residential and commercial in its different schemes including the plot in question (Plot No. A-10, Govind Marg, Janta Colony, Jaipur ). This is a residential plot measuring 420 square meters. The auction of this plot was fixed on 7th of August, 1989 at 10. 30 A. M. In response to that notice of auction, the petitioner raised a bid and his bid of Rs. 2050/- per square meter was being the highest, it was knock down. As per the terms and conditions of the auction on which there is not any dispute the petitioner, on finalization of the auction in his favour of the plot in question, he was required to deposit on the spot 5% of the amount of sale and 20% of the sale amount within next twentyfour hours. The rest seventyfive percent of the amount was to be deposited by the petitioner within thirty days of the notice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not deposited 5% of the required amount of auction on the spot and 20% of the amount of auction within next twentyfour hours. The total cost of the plot which was finalized in favour of the petitioner in auction comes to Rs. 8,61,000/-; five percent of which is Rs. 43050/- and 20% of the same comes to Rs. 1,72,200/ -. The amount which had to be deposited by the petitioner may be a pity amount for him but it is a handsome amount for the Jaipur Development Authority. In stead of depositing this amount of costs of the plot, the petitioner sent a notice to the Chief Revenue Officer of the Jaipur Development Authority on 9th of August, 1989 through the Advocate. In this notice the explanation furnished for not depositing this amount is that on 7th of August, 1989 at the spot of auction one Smt. Tara Devi wife of Shri Ladu Ram, Resident of Laxmi Narayan, Near Dharamshala Barafkhana Ka Rasta, Jaipur informed to the petitioner that she has got a stay for maintaining status quo regarding the plot in dispute. Due to this stay order, the petitioner in stead of depositing this amount, gave a telegram to the Chief Revenue Officer, Jaipur Development Authority on 7th of August, 1989 itself. He further stated that he is ready to deposit the amount on the clarification of the position. In para No. 5 of this Notice it is stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount as per the terms and conditions but due to the stay order in favour of Smt. Tara Devi the position is not clear regarding the plot in dispute. It is prayed that the position may be clarified to the petitioner within a period of two days so that he may be able to deposit the amount.
(3.) AFTER this notice the Jaipur Development Authority has taken a decision to cancel this auction of the plot and further ordered for forfeiture of Rs. 1000/- deposited by the petitioner as earnest money. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. As per his own case the petitioner filed the appeal on 30. 08. 1989. The appeal was admitted on 31. 8. 1989 and the notices were issued to the respondents of appeal on 9th of September, 1989. The petitioner applied for preponding the date in the appeal as the Jaipur Development Authority fixed the auction of the plot in dispute on 11th of September, 1989 at 10. 30 AM. Accordingly, the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has considered the application filed by the petitioner for stay and vide its order dated 8. 09. 1989 rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25. 8. 1989 (Annexure-6) and the order of the Tribunal dated 8. 9. 1989. The further prayer is made for a direction to the Jaipur Development Authority not to auction the plot No. A-10, Govind Marg, Janta Colony, Jaipur on 11. 09. 1989 at 10. 30 AM. Further direction prayed for is that the Jaipur Development Authority may be directed to clarify the exact position of the plot and to accept the amount to be deposited with penalty and interest. ;