Compliance with specific procedural conditions is essential for participation in government auctions, and failure to meet those conditions justifies denial of application.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Facts of this case are unusual and disturbing. Extremely wild and contumacious allegations have been levelled against sitting and retired judges of this Court, by the petitioner in person. Criminal contempt proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the matter, it would be apt to refer to the background facts.

2. Petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha is primarily aggrieved by the action of respondent U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Parishad’), in not considering his application for allotment of plots in a scheme advertised by the Parishad. The petitioner initially approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23656 of 2018 against the State of U.P. and the Parishad wherein following reliefs were sought:-

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned auction notice published in daily news paper Amar Ujala dated 05.07.2018 and its after effects etc. for future too and in respect of properties only of Saharanpur District [Meerut Zone), (Annexure No. 2 to this writ claim representation of rights).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS in the alternative commanding the Parishad respondents to hold the concern auction only from amongst the old depositors those participants who tried to deposit token money prior to fixed date 15.01.2018 accepting amount deposited on receipt issued by respondent through bank corrected its Account number.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents not to issue any fresh auction notice in future with regard to property of Sahranpur and to provide right account number and permit the petitioner to deposit rest returned amount digital mode also and to reimburse for the losses sustained by to the extent as referred in paragraph.... Of this writ claim representation.

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to pay 18% monthly compound interest at the deposited token money to the petitioner and other depositors too till the date of its payment alike imposed upon their allottees by the respondents' policies.

(v) issue a wait, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to pay the compensation (Rs. 12,00,000/-) (compelled to born economical, mental and physical losses) plus 18% monthly compound interest to the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case considering the age of the petitioner also.

(vi) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vii) To award the cost of the present writ claim representation in favour of petitioner.”

3. In the aforesaid petition, apart from highlighting petitioner’s grievance in respect of the allotment of plot scandalous and sweeping remarks were made against the judges of this Court. When the petition was heard by the Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, exception was taken to the wild allegations made in the petition. This is reflected from the following orders passed by the Court on 13.7.2018:-

“Heard Mr. Ish Kumar Valecha, the petitioner in person, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Habib Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

Counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, invites our