A third party has no standing to challenge a sale process conducted by a corporation in accordance with its own constitution and obligations.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated July 15, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 19398 (W) of 2014 by virtue of the impugned judgment the writ application of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The case made out in the writ application was that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner entered into an agreement dated January 17, 1990 for sale of a property of the West Bengal Financial Corporation (respondent no. 1) for purchasing a property of a defaulter (M/s. Iswari Ceremics). The father of the petitioner failed to pay the entire consideration money within February 23, 1990 in terms of the above agreement. Further, by a communication dated April 7, 1990, he withdrew his offer of purchasing the property under reference. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 informed the father of the appellant by a communication dated November 15, 1990 that unless the payments in terms of the agreement under reference were made, the agreement for sale would be treated as cancelled and payment received from him would stand forfeited.

3. On March 20, 2014, the respondent no. 1 published advertisement in “Business Standard” and “Sambad Pratidin” for auction sale of the property in question. The respondent no. 1 received a communication dated March 31, 2014 from the petitioner for completion of sale of the property in question on the basis of the agreement dated January 17, 1990. In reply the respondent no. 1 informed the appellant by a communication dated April 11, 2014 that the agreement for sale dated January 17, 1990 had been terminated as also the earnest money paid for execution of the above agreement had also been forfeited due to nonpayment of the entire money within the period mentioned in the agreement. However, it was stated in the above communication that in the event the appellant was willing to pay a sum of Rs.2,26,15,905.15/- as down payment, his order for purchasing the property in question would be considered. However, it was written in the above communication that the above offer was made without prejudice to the rights of the respondent no. 1 for selling out the property in question to anyone in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ application for cancellation of the tender notice dated March 20, 2014 as also for a writ in the nature of mandamus.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Malay Basu, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned single Judge failed to arrive at a conclusion that the action on the part of the respondent no. 1 was arbitrary. According to him, invitation of tenders from the intending purchasers in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was published in two newspapers namely, “Business Standard” and “Sambad Pratidin.” The learned single Judge failed to take into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that those newspapers had no wide circulation. It is further submitted by him that while a subsequent offer was made to the appellant by the respondent no. 1 by its communication dated April 11, 2014 to sell the property in question on down payment of Rs.2,26,15,905.15/-, the respondent no. 1 suppressed the fact of initiating the process of sale of the property in question informing the tenders from intending purchasers. It is also submitted by him that there was an attempt to sell out the property in question to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 at Rs.20 lakh only in violation of the dominant consideration to secure the best price for the property in question.

6. Mr. Basu relied upon the decision of Kerala Finaicial Corporation vs. Vincent Paul and Another, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 171 in support of his above submission.

7. In reply it is submitted by Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, that there was no pleading in the writ application raisin