Allahabad High Court
M/S M.M. Overseas Lucknow Thru. Its Sole ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1010 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S M.M. Overseas Lucknow Thru. Its Sole Proprietor , Mr. Shoeb Ahmad Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Krishi Vipdan Evam Krishi Vedesh Vyapar Vibhag And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Atul Misra,Dhiraj Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 28.01.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 i.e. Secretary Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sitapur Road, Lucknow and also to quash the advertisement issued by the respondent no. 4-Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti, Sitapur Road, Lucknow dated 23.01.2023 with respect to the shop no. 30. Directions to quash the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. District Magistrate, Lucknow/Chairman, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sitapur Road, Lucknow by means of which the approval of the auction dated 20.05.2022 was refused has also been sought.
Instant writ petition also seeks a direction to the respondent no. 3 to 5 to approve the auction dated 20.05.2022 with respect to bid of the petitioner with respect to Shop No. 30.
It is the case of the petitioner that it is a sole proprietorship having certificate of Importer-Exporter Code issued on 06.05.2020 by the Competent Authority and it is duly registered with the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) for APEDA Scheduled Products(mentioned therein). Under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1964), Mandi Samities are constituted for every Market Area.
The respondent no. 2 has been established under the Act of 1964 and the State Government has financial control over it. It is in the nature of a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thus writ petition is maintainable.
It is submitted that the allotment of shops in the Market Area established by the respondent no. 2 are regulated under the ???? ????/?????? ????/???? ???????/ ???? ????? ?????? (?.??.?? )/??????? ???????? ?????? (??? ) ??? ??????? ???????/??????? ??? ???? ???????????? ?? ????? ??????????? -2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 2016).
As per the regulations of 2016, the successful bidders were required to deposit the 50% of the highest bid amount within 15 days and remaining 50% amount within 3 months, thereafter, with a facility of time extension on grant of permission by Samiti on 1% monthly interest for the time taken to deposit the remaining amount.
The advertisement for allotment of shop was published and the petitioner participated in such allotment by submitting an application on 12.05.2022 alongwith the Registration Fee of Rs. 1,54,000/- through Bank Draft. The auction held on 20.05.2022 for Shop No. 30. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 15.85 Lakhs was declared as highest bidder. However, since the respondent no. 3 is the Approving Authority for such auction, papers were forwarded by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 3 and therefore the petitioner did not deposit 50% of the bid amount, as per the Regulations, 2016 within 15 days of such fall of hammer. The petitioner was waiting for such approval to be granted but respondent no. 4 published an advertisement in the Newspapers on 25.01.2023 fixing 07.02.2023 as the date of auction of shops including the shop for which, the petitioner's bid was highest i.e. Shop No. 30.
The petitioner approached the respondent nos. 3 and 4 with his grievance that he was never informed of any order passed by the competent authority and he was willing to make payment outright but was told to wait till approval was granted by the Competent Authority and now the order impugned has been passed without indicating any reason for cancelling the auction of Shop No. 30. The respondents orally told him that it is the District Magistrate, who takes the decision for approval of auction held by the Mandi Samiti. They are bound by the directions issued by the District Magistrate, hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of District Magistrate as also that of the Mandi Samiti and the Advertisement.
Shri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 has received written instructions in the matter in pursuance of the order of this Court passed yesterday granting time to seek instructions and says that there were 76 shops in the Market Area established at Sitapur Road which included several shops and first auction was held on 25.04.2022 where only 11 shops could be allotted as the bid price was between Rs. 3.60 Lakhs to Rs. 22 Lakhs. The remaining 65 shops were again auctioned on 20.05.2022. Only 15 applicants came forward with their applications. Out of these 15 bidders, only 7 bidders turned up at the time of auction and bids that that was made so low that they did not exceed more than 60 lacks in any case.
The petitioner no doubt had bid for Shop No. 30 and proposed a price of Rs. 15,85,000/- but the Competent Authority for granting approval of such auction is the respondent no. 3, when the papers were placed before the respondent no. 3, he found that the bidders having bid very low and because of inadequate bidding, the auction was cancelled.
It has been argued by Shri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of written instructions that there was no agreement in-fact there was no allotment to the petitioner he was only one of the bidders and his bid was found highest for Shop No. 30 and thus, no right could be said to have been granted in favour of the petitioner just because his bid was highest for Shop No. 30.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that the reserved price put by the Mandi Samiti was only 15,40,000/- and the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 15,85,000/- yet he was not allotted the shop in question.
From the pleadings made in the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has found that in the Regulations, 2016, there is specific Regulation No. 7 which says that all allotment shall be subject to approval of the District Magistrate, in case, the District Magistrate is not one of the Members of the Committee, which has undertaken the allotment.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's allegation that a non-speaking order was passed and the petitioner was not informed of such order of the District Magistrate, is misconceived as no right was created in favour of the petitioner in the first place only by making highest bid. The Regulation, 2016 provides for approval by the District Magistrate and the matter was pending with the District Magistrate.
It cannot be said that any legitimate expectation arose in favour of the petitioner only by making a bid of more than the reserved price.
The approval or otherwise that is given on the file by the District Magistrate is an administrative order looking into the facts and circumstances. It is not a quashi-judicial order that it should be speaking in nature.
Writ petition is dismissed, however, it shall be open for the petitioner to participate in the afresh auction proposed to be held. In case, he does not participate, his Registration Fee shall be returned to him within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Ashish