State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajinder Son Of Sh.Hukam Chand vs New Mandi Township, Punjab on 27 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.33 of 2008
Date of institution: 10.01.2008
Date of decision : 27.01.2010
1. Rajinder son of Sh.Hukam Chand;
2. Rachna Ram s/o Sh.Hukam Chand;
Both residents of 147, New Anaj Mandi, Sunam District Sangrur.
.....Appellants
Versus
New Mandi Township, Punjab through its Administrator, SCO No.2437, Sector
22C, Chandigarh.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 03.10.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.A.K.Singla, Advocate
For the respondent : Ms.Nishi Garg, AAG, Punjab
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
This order will dispose of two appeals namely First Appeal No.33 of 2008 (Rajinder and another v. New Mandi Township, Punjab) and First Appeal No.1481 of 2008 (Madhu Mangal and others v. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab) as the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals are identical. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.33 of 2008 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. The respondents held the public auction on 5.12.2006 and the appellants had purchased plot No.146 from the respondents and had deposited a First Appeal No.33 of 2008 2 sum of Rs.6,63,500/- as 25% of the total plot price. The remaining amount was payable either in lumpsum or with interest in 6 half yearly instalments.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellants were surprised to receive letter dated 19.1.2007 alongwith the refund voucher dated 18.1.2007 for an amount of Rs.6,63,500/-. The plot was also put to re-auction vide advertisement published in the Daily Punjab Kesari newspaper on 23.4.2007 for fresh auction. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum") seeking directions against the respondents to withdraw letter dated 19.1.2007 and voucher dated 18.1.2007 and to permit the appellants to deposit the remaining balance amount with them. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the auction was conducted on 5.12.2006 in the New Grain Market, Sunam and the appellants had offered bid for plot No.146 and had deposited a sum of Rs.6,63,500/- as 25% of the plot price. It was also not disputed that 75% of the balance amount was payable either in lump sum or with interest in six half yearly instalments.
5. It was, however, pleaded that upon close scrutiny and analysis of the auction process and the bid forms, it was found out that the size of shop plot No.146 was 20'-9" x 125' and it was a corner plot and its sale price amounting to Rs.26,50,000/- was comparatively less than that of other plots sold in the same auction. Therefore, the bid was not approved by the Director Colonization and therefore, the amount deposited by the appellants was refunded to them immediately thereafter. It was further pleaded that the Government could accept or reject any tender without assigning any reason under Rule 3(4) of the New Mandi Township (D & R) Act and Rules, 1960. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on their part and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. First Appeal No.33 of 2008 3
6. Rajinder Kumar appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of N.S.Bath, Administrator as Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.
7. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 3.10.2007.
8. Hence, the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 3.10.2007 be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. Admittedly, the respondents had put plot No.146 in public auction in New Grain Market, Sunam on 5.12.2006. The appellants had offered bid for this plot and they had deposited a sum of Rs.6,63,500/- on the same day as 25% of the plot price.
13. It is also not disputed that the respondents had sent the refund voucher dated 18.1.2007 for an amount of Rs.6,63,500/- alongwith letter dated 19.1.2007 to the appellants and the bid was not approved.
14. The respondents have proved a copy of the Rule 3(4) of the Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules 1960 (in short "Rules, 1960") which lays down that the final bid which is accepted by the Administrator shall be subject to the approval of the State Government (Ex.R4). It means, therefore, that merely because the bid was made by the appellants, it was not a final act in itself. It was open for review by the Government under the Statutory provisions referred to above.
First Appeal No.33 of 2008 4
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondents have no right to cancel the bid. In this context, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 16.9.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.2398 of 2009 (Hem Raj and others v. State of Punjab and another) in which the cancellation of the bid was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court.
16. This submission has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has been perused.
17. The bid was cancelled in Hem Raj's case (supra) by the respondents for the reason that at the time of auction, some anti social elements had created disturbance which prevented the general public to participate in the auction process. However, the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid judgment was pleased to reach the conclusion that this stand of the respondents was disbelieved.
18. We agree that the respondents have no blanket right to cancel the bid whenever they feel merely because the provision to that effect was there in Rules, 1960. The respondents have to make out a case for cancellation of the bid and those reasons are open to the judicial review/scrutiny.
19. In the present case, the respondents have placed on the file a copy of the letter dated 31.5.2007 as Ex.R2 by which the bid of the appellant has been cancelled. Reasons given by the respondents in this letter dated 31.5.2007 Ex.R2 were that the area of this plot was 20'-9" x 125' and, therefore, the area of this plot was more than the area of the other plots. Moreover, it was a corner plot and the plot was sold for a sum of Rs.25,50,000/- which was much less than the price fetched by other plots. Therefore, reasons have been given by the respondents for cancelling the bid of the appellants. The respondents have given adequate reasons and have not cancelled the bid arbitrarily or without application of mind.
20. From the above discussion therefore, it appears that the respondents had the legal right to cancel the plot for the valid reasons and in the letter dated 31.5.2007 Ex.R2, the respondents have given valid reasons for cancelling the bid of this plot held on 5.12.2006.
First Appeal No.33 of 2008 5
21. Therefore, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
First Appeal No.1481 of 2008
22. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is also dismissed.
23. The arguments in both the cases were heard on 19.01.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
January 27, 2010.
Paritosh