Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the respondent Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'UIT') for sale of commercial plot situated at Sector No. 5, Hiran Magri, Udaipur. The petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs. 5,000/ - in cash and the reafter, he gave bid of Rs. 311/ - per sq. ft. That bid was highest. The total cost of the plot thereby came to be Rs. 15,86,100/ -. The petitioner deposited amount of Rs.75,000/ - in cash with the UIT and thereafter, deposited Rs. 3,20,000/ - with in time, to complete Rs. 4,00,000/ - which is 1/4th of the amount which was required to be deposited by the bidder on acceptance of his bid by the auctioneer/respondent. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of receipts dt. 17.01.1996 and cash challan of Rs. 3,20,000/ - as Annex.2 and 3along with the writ petition. According to the petitioner, sale was confirmed by Chairman on 18.01.1996. The petitioner thereafter requested for depositing the balance amount of Rs. 11,86,550/ - and for that purpose, the petition ergave three cheques to the respondent which are cheque No.671834 forRs.4,00,000/ -, cheque No.671835 for Rs. 4,00,000/ - and cheque No. 671836 for Rs. 3,86,550/ -. The cheques were dt. 12.02.1996, 14.02.1996 and 15.02.1996 respectively. Instead of executing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was again communicated vide communication dt. 25.01.1996that the bid which was accepted and confirmed by Chairman, UIT, has been cancelled by District Collector cum Chairman, UIT and, therefore, cheque of Rs. 4 lakhs is being sent to the petitioner. This communication dt. 25.01.1996 followed by another communication dt. 30.01.1996 by which, cheques submitted by the petitioner in time to the UIT were returned to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent once has confirmed the sale and accepted the huge amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - cannot arbitrarily cancel the auction. It is submitted that the Chairman of the UIT once approved and confirmed the sale had no jurisdiction to cancel the sale. It is also submitted that no order has been communicated to the respondent by which the sale was cancelled by the Chairman of the UIT. It is submitted that that cancellation order, copy of which has been produced by the respondent, also shows that said order is wholly illegal and void as has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a direction against the respondents to issue lease deed in favour of the petitioner.;