An auction can be cancelled if there is reason to believe that there has been fraud or collusion among the bidders.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 13874 of 2014

Netrananda Behera

…..

Petitioner

Mr. D. Mahapatra, Advocate

Vs.

Sri Sri Dhabaleswar Thakur

& Anr.

…..

Opposite parties

Mr. T. Pattnaik, ASC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

12.01.2022

Order No.

3

This matter is taken up through video

conferencing mode.

2.

Heard Mr. D. Mahapatra, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Additional

Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition

seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to refund the

EMD amount of Rs.77,440/- immediately with

interest accrued thereon.

4.

Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner

deposited a sum of Rs.77,440/- as EMD with an

intention to participate in the proposed auction sale of

“Bhoga shop” inside the premises of Sri Sri

2

Dhabaleswar Dev, Bije Mancheswar under Athagarh

Debottar scheduled to be held on 18.03.2014 at 11

A.M. in the office of the Executive Officer, Debottar

& Sub-Collector, Athagarh in response to notice

published vide letter dated 06.03.2014. As per the

schedule, auction process was held at 11 A.M. and

the Assistant Collector was authorized to conduct the

same. Two bidders, namely, Netrananda Behera and

Anjan Kumar Behera, who were present at the spot,

participated in the bid with Rs.4,00,000/- only and

stagnated his offer at the opening bid till the entire

process was completed. The other applicant was

though present did not offer any bid money till

completion of the auction sale but remained as a

silent spectator. It is contended that the conduct of

the petitioner in this case was surprising and pointed

to the conclusion that both bidders present in the

auction sale were involved in fixing of the tender

according to their plan and programme. The

petitioner remained silent completely without further

participating in the bid. The officer, who was

conducting the auction sale being authorized,

expressed his displeasure relating to the manners in

which the bid was offered by only one bidder and the

other kept mum. The officer conducting the auction

3

sale cancelled the auction on the ground that the bid

was less than the offset price fixed for the

“Bhogshop” and there was auction fixing, which is

quite clear from the conduct of the bidders.

Therefore, the EMD of both the bidders was forfeited

on the ground of tender fixing.

5.

In that view of the matter, this Court is not

inclined

to

entertain

this

writ

petition

and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

6.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of

COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel

for the parties may utilize a print out of the order

available in the High Court’s website, at par with

certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned

advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s

Notice No.4587 dated 25^th March, 2020, as modified

by Court’s notice no. 4798 dated 15^th April, 2021,

and Court’s Office Order circulated vide Memo

Nos.514 and 515 dated 7^th January, 2022.

Alok

……………………...

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)

JUDGE

…………….…………..…….

(S.K. PANIGRAHI)

JUDGE

4