ORDER

I.A. No. 1 of 2023

For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, the Interlocutory Application is allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the pleadings are that the petitioner has hypothecated his land measuring 17 decimals bearing khata no. 103, plot no. 468 under thana no. 546 situated at village Bindas, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya, to the respondent-Corporation on 11.08.1987 for the purpose of sanctioning a term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). Pursuant to the said hypothecation an amount of Rs.4.58/- lakhs has been disbursed to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that due to naxal activity in the area where land is situated, the petitioner could not conduct the business. That inspite of making several representations to the Corporation for shifting of the factory they have not passed any orders. That the petitioner came to know about the auction sale of hypothecated asset of the petitioner vide Order, dated 27.09.2022. Thereafter the petitioner rushed to the office of the respondents and made representations, no action was taken on the said representation. Even though the petitioner has stated about the inter se dispute between the family members of the petitioner, the same has no bearing on the issue involved, therefore, the same is not being reiterated. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner was not put on prior notice before the auction was conducted and the same was knocked in favour of Respondent No. 6. Further, it is stated that the inaction of the respondents in not serving any prior notice to the petitioner for repayment of the amounts due or before putting the hypothecated property for auction is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity and the same is liable to be set aside Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner is willing to deposit the amount of sale consideration paid by the Respondent No. 6 and prayed for allowing the present Writ Petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel has stated that the respondent-authority duly following the procedure prescribed under the Act have put the hypothecated property for auction as the petitioner had not paid a single rupee to the credit of the loan account. The Respondent No. 6 being the highest bidder in the open auction, the sale was confirmed in his favour. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has taken the loan by hypothecating the land way back in the year 1987 and till date petitioner has not repaid a single rupee. That total outstanding amount due to the Corporation is approximately Rs.1,17,92,000/- as on 31.03.2021 and if the interest is added to the above authority amount it would be more than Rs.1.30/- Crores. That the official respondents have followed the procedure prescribed by the Corporation while conducting the open auction. The Corporation has issued advertisements in leading newspaper inviting tenders for sale of the mortgaged property and once the bids are received, the valuation of the property will be done by the two empanelled external valuers. Thereafter, on the basis of the valuation report the negotiation will be held with the tenderers and the highest offer made by the bidder and finalized in the negotiations will be published in the newspaper so as to attract better offer. In this particular case the tenders were called and after negotiations were held the highest offer was finalized and the Respondent No. 6 who has initially offered Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) for the subject property has increased the offer to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) during the process of negotiation. The offer of Rs.30,00,000/- made by Respondent No. 6 was advertised in the newspapers so as to attract better offers, as no fresh bids were received, the sale was finalized in favour of the Respond