The highest bidder at public auctions has no vested right until the bid is confirmed by the competent authority, and the court's interference in contractual and commercial matters should be minimal.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

The instant appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 13th August, 2008 setting aside the order dated 24th August, 2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Patiala with a further direction to the competent authority to confirm the auction sale and complete all other formalities within three months.

2. The facts in brief culled out from the record and relevant for the purpose are that the sub-urban properties are to be disposed of in terms of the procedure for sale by public auction, as provided under Chapter III of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal)Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1976"), framed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 18 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties(Disposal) Act, 1976. Part III of Rules 1976 provides for transfer of urban properties.

3. The appellants being the custodian of the subject property initiated the process of putting the property to public auction through the notice published in Punjabi Tribune of 17th May, 1993, the extract of auction notice is reproduced as under:-

"Punjabi Tribune, Monday, 17 May 1993

AUCTION NOTICE

General public is informed that the following Sub Urban Land of Tehsil Malerkotla will be auctioned at the time and place given below. l/5th of the bid amount shall be given at the spot in cash. The remaining conditions of the auction will be fold on the spot.

Sd/-

Tehsildar Revenue-cum-M.O. Malerkotla"

4. It has not been pleaded that the auction notice was given its wide publicity and affixed at the conspicuous place in the locality where the property is situated.

5. The Tehsildar Sales, Malerkotla conducted public auction on 4th June, 1993 and this fact is not disputed that only three bidders had participated in the bidding process and bid of the respondent, Mehar Din was the highest bid of Rs. 3,90,000/-, which was provisionally accepted by the Tehsildar. Pursuant thereto, l/5th of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 78,000/- was deposited by the respondent at the spot subject to its confirmation by the Sales Commissioner in terms of the procedure for sale by public auction provided under Rule 8(l)(h) of Chapter III of the Rules 1976.

6. On perusal of records, the competent authority (Sales Commissioner) was of the view that the public property has not been put to proper publicity and the present bid is inadequate and failed to record his satisfaction for confirmation of the bid and accordingly the bid was cancelled by an order dated 2nd July, 1993 with a further direction for re-auction and to be auctioned in his presence with wide publication to fetch the maximum price.

7. The order dated 2nd July, 1993 became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the respondent in appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Sangrur, who after perusal of the record, returned a finding that on the date of auction, i.e. 4th June, 1993 conducted by the Tehsildar Sales, only three persons had participated in the bidding process and arrived to a conclusion that the Tehsildar Sales had not conducted the bidding process properly and adequate publicity was not made and under its order dated 24th October 1994, confirmed the order of the Sales Commissioner cancelling the bid.

8. The order of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Sangrur dated 24th October, 1994 came to be challenged by the respondent under Section 10 of the Act 1976. The Divisional Commissioner, after recording a finding that no opportunity was afforded to the bidder before passi