Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Girwar Singh S/o Hirdelal Halba - Appellant
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad, Dallirajhara – Respondent
FA No. 62, 63 of 2014
Decided on : 12-05-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 12 and 226 - Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 - Section 109 and sub-section(3) of 109 - Registration possession of Shop - Security amount/auction money - Appellants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit before learned 2ndAdditional District Judge, contending that defendant Bus Stand, Opposite per the right of occupation accordingly, earnest money has to be deposited and auction - Plaintiffs have deposited as security amount/auction money - Minimum price was determined by appellant and two persons have also participated in the auction - Plaintiffs offered maximum price to tune - Auction and auction was closed rent 1/3rd amount has to be deposited after accepting the auction and entire amount has to be deposited within 15 days from date of acceptance of the bid then only shops have to be allotted - It has been further contended that as per the Rules when plaintiff went to office of Municipal Corporation, depositing 1/3rd amount the Chief Municipality Officer has informed them that construction of shop has not been completed, - Somehow it has been dragged and ultimately appellants/plaintiffs have moved applications for allotment of shops and to deposit the amount but their request was not acceded and again plaintiffs/appellants have submitted their applications - They have also made a complaint before the Collector, - Collector that vide letter instructions received by the State Government they will construct the work and do the needful - they sought information under Right to Information Act and it has been informed that - taken possession of the suit property and if anybody has taken the property of suit shops, they - allotment be treated as null and void. It has also been informed to the plaintiff that the Government has directed for conducting fresh auction proceedings as per Chhattisgarh Municipalities - Held, Law on the subject has been consistently followed by Court even in the later decisions holding that superior Courts should not interfere in the matters of tenders - - provisional bid, in the instant case, was not confirmed by the competent authority (Sales Commissioner)and not being accepted after recording its due satisfaction by an order decision of the authority in passing the order of cancellation of the auction bid was scrutinized/examined by the appellate/revisional authority and the discretion exercised by the competent authority in taking decision of cancellation was upheld at later stages - settled law that highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and in the given circumstances under the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating tender is the best judge of its requirements - Plaintiffs/appellants have not complied with the condition No. 2.8 of the tender document, coupled with fact that the Government has not approved the said tender process as per Rules of 1996 - Trial court has rightly dismissed the suit - Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Since an identical question involves in both the appeals, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellant/plaintiffs (appellant Girwar Singh has preferred First Appeal No. 62 of 2014 and appellant Nazeem Khan has preferred First Appeal No. 63 of 2014) have preferred both the appeals against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Balod (CG) in Civil Suit Nos.20-A/13and 21-A/13 whereby the suits filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for allotment of shop in their names, registration possession of Shop Nos. 1 and 2 situated at Commercial Complex, Ward No.24, Pratiksha Bus Stand, Opposite Sulabh Sauchalay, Dallirajjhara and for restraining the respondent No.1 from initiating the auction proceeding have been dismissed.
3. The brief fact, as reflected from the record are that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit before the learned 2ndAdditional District Judge, Balod mainly contending that the defendant No.1 namely Nagar Palika Parishad, Dalli-rajhara has issued an advertisement in daily newspaper on 26-8-2009 for auction of the suit property of 14 shops situated at Ward No.24, near Pratiksha Bus Stand, Opposite Sulabh Sauchalay, Dallirajjhara as per the right of occupation accordingly, earnest money has to be deposited on 30-9-2009 and auction has to be conducted on 1-10-2009 at 2.00 pm. The plaintiffs have deposited Rs.3,000/- each as security amount/auction money. The minimum price was determined by the respondent No.1 was at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The appellant and two persons have also participated in the auction. The plaintiffs offered maximum price to the tune of Rs.2,27,000/-, in the auction and auction was closed at Rs.2,27,000/- and the rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/-. As per advertisement, 1/3rd amount has to be deposited after accepting the auction and entire amount has to be deposited within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the bid then only shops have to be allotted. It has been further contended that as per the Rules when plaintiff went to office of Municipal Corporation, Dalli-rajhara, for depositing 1/3rd amount the Chief Municipality Officer has informed them that construction of shop has not been completed, when the construction will be completed they will intimate the appellant with regard to deposit the amount. Somehow it has been dragged and ultimately on 24-4-2010 the appellants/plaintiffs have moved applications for allotment of shops and to deposit the amount but their request was not acceded and again the plaintiffs/appellants have submitted their applications on 3-8-2010. They have also made a complaint before the Collector, Durg, and it has been informed to the Collector that vide letter dated 15-9-2010 as per instructions received by the State Government they will construct the work and do the needful. Thereafter, it has been brought to the notice of the appellants/plaintiffs that some persons have illegally occupied the shops and started doing their business, therefore, they sought information under Right to Information Act and it has been informed that on 9-9-2009 the matter will be placed in the meeting of the Council and any action will be taken as per decision of the committee. It has been informed that no one has taken possession of the suit property and if anybody has taken the property of suit shops, they will be evicted as per law and the said shops shall be taken back. The appellants/plaintiffs have sent a notice to defendant No.1 on 20.07.2012 through their Advocates which was replied by the defendant No.1 on 26.07.2012 intimating that on 21.06.2012, the Government has rejected the proposal made by the council and allotment be treated as null and void. It has also been informed to the plaintiff that the Government has directed for conducting fresh auction proceedings as per Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules 1996. It has been contended that before auction
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
