Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Jain vs Union Of India on 25 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 484
1
WA-679-2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WRIT APPEAL NO.679/2017
(RAHUL JAIN AND OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
JABALPUR, DATED: 25-07-2018
Shri Prashant Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Suyash Thakur,
Advocate for the appellants.
Shri D.K. Paroha, Advocate for the respondents No.3 and 4.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by learned Single Bench on 3rd July, 2017 whereby, the allotment of 30 shops in pursuance of notice in the newspaper was sought to be quashed.
The prayer of the petitioner was that a fresh public auction for allotment of all 30 shops of the Cantonment Shopping Mall in a fair and transparent manner should be issued and allotment finalized.
The Cantonment Board in its meeting held on 27 th June, 2006 decided to construct 148 shops and 21 kiosks in a shopping mall and to allot the same to the needy people. 141 shops except 28 shops were auctioned earlier and there was no objection whatsoever to these auction. Thereafter, the Cantonment Board decided to publish a public notice dated 20th February, 2014 for conduct of public auction for allocation of shops. Thereafter, it was decided that instead of public auction, the process of tender shall be followed. The tenders were required to be submitted by 31 st July, 2014.
The appellant disputed the allotment of shops by Notice Inviting 2 WA-679-2017 Tender on the ground that change of procedure of transfer rights of shops by tender, instead of public notice, is illegal and arbitrary and that the appellants have not been permitted to submit their tender form and the same have not been accepted on the ground that they were not received within the time prescribed.
Section 267 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act) deal with the power of the Board to transfer stalls and shops in a public market or public slaughter-house. Section 267 of the Act reads as under:-
267. Power to transfer by public auction, etc.--(1) The Board may transfer by public auction, for any period not exceeding five years at a time, the right to occupy or use any stall, shop, standing, shed or pen in a public market, or public slaughter-house or the right to expose goods for sale in a public market or the right to weigh or measure goods sold therein, or the right to slaughter animals in any public slaughter-house:
Provided that where the Board is of opinion that such transfer of the aforesaid rights by public auction is not considered desirable or expedient, it may, with the previous sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command or in his absence, the Principal Director, -
(a) either levy such stallages, rents or fees as it thinks fit; or
(b) farm the stallages, rents and fees leviable under clause (a) for any period not exceeding one year at a time:
Provided further that the enjoyment of any such aforesaid right by any person for any length of time shall never be deemed to create or confer any tenancy right in such stall, shop, standing, shed, pen, public market or public slaughter-house.
(2) The Board may transfer by public auction or otherwise any 3 WA-679-2017 immovable property other than in a public market or a public slaughter house if such property is capable of being put to remunerative use for such period and on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command or in his absence, the Principal Director.
It has also come on record that the appellants have obtained tender documents but have opted not to submit tender form in accordance with date and time of Notice Inviting Tender. It has been further found by the learned Single Bench that out of 28 shops which were part of the process of allotment, multiples bids were received in respect of 5 shops alone which was allotted but, in respect of remaining shops, there was only one bidder. Therefore, such shops have not been allotted. Learned Single Bench has not found any illegality in the process of allotment and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Board is competent to transfer any stall or a shop by public auction alone and the process of Notice Inviting Tender is not contemplated by the provisions of the Statute.
We do not find any merit in the said argument.
The expression "public auction" is wide which may include inviting all the intending purchasers and to give them an opportunity to out-bid each other on one platform. The public auction also includes inviting bids from the interested persons in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender and in pursuance of which the bids can be accepted. The public auction means that 4 WA-679-2017 it is not conducted in a closed-door room but where the general public has the opportunity to participate in the process of allotment. The Notice Inviting Tender was published in the newspaper. Therefore, such process of allotment by Notice Inviting Tender is a facet of public auction alone.
In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench, which may warrant interference in the present intra-court appeal.
Dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (S.K. Gangele)
Chief Justice Judge
vinod
Digitally signed by VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2018.07.25 16:36:59 +05'30'