Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2015
---1---
W.A. No.427/2015, W.A. No.437/2015, W.A.
No.447/2015, W.A. No.449/2015, W.A. No.474/2015,
W.A. No.475/2015, W.A. No.476/2015, W.A.
No.487/2015, W.A. No.492/2015, W.A. No.643/2015,
W.P. No.18425/2015
24.11.2015
W.A. No.427/2015
The appellant is represented by an Advocate. However, the Advocate has expressed inability to appear in Court because of the call given by the M.P. Bar Council to abstain from Court work for today.
Appellant - Vishnu Singh Rajput, appears in person. His attention was invited to the order dated 20.10.2015 - wherein Court had made it amply clear that the matter was being adjourned, but no further adjournment will be granted. Realising this position he submits that he would like to argue the case himself. We have permitted him to argue the appeal for admission.
According to appellants, they were not at fault in not depositing the amount within the time specified by the Authority. Moreover, in view of the interim protection given by the High Court in W.P. No.3957/2010 vide order dated 27.4.2010, they were advised that it was not necessary to deposit the amount payable by them. It is submitted that they were always ready and willing to pay the amount, if it
---2---
was so required to be paid as a condition precedent for execution of the sale deed in their favour.
This contention has been considered by the learned Single Judge. In Paragraph No.10, the learned Single Judge has noted that the persons similarly placed, as that of the appellants, who paid the entire amount within the specified time, the Mandi executed sale deeds in their favour. In paragraph No.12, the learned Single Judge has noted that if the appellants were to pay the amount, the Mandi would have executed sale deeds even in their favour. On the other hand, the appellants did not substantiate their claim that they wanted to pay the amount and Mandi refused to accept the same. Further, the time period specified was as per the statutory provision. Under Rule 10 (1) (4) of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of Land and Structures) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2009), if the highest bidder failed to deposit the amount within time, then his earnest money would stand forfeited and the second highest bidder would be offered the plot. Moreover, there was no statutory provision permitting the Mandi to extend the time limit. In view of this statutory provision, it is not open to the appellants to contend that the Mandi should have given further time to the appellants.
As a matter of fact, the provision such as Rule
---3---
10 (1) (4) of the Rules of 2009, is a self operative provision - which postulates that when the highest bidder fails to pay the balance amount within the prescribed time, the auction will stand confirmed in favour of the second highest bidder, if he has made an offer more than the reserved price. That statutory provision must be given effect to.
Accepting the argument of the appellants would result in issuing direction to the Authorities to act contrary to the said statutory provision. That cannot be countenanced. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in rejecting this argument of the appellants and also rightly observed that the nature of dispute was such that the remedy of writ petition was unavailable to the appellants. The writ petition cannot be used as a proceedings in the form of a civil suit for specific performance, for enforcing the contractual obligations between the parties. For that, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to in the impugned Judgment.
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we find no merits in this appeal.
We may place on record that during the pendency of these appeals, in the past, option was given to the parties to negotiate and find out some amicable solution. Pursuant to
---4---
that, deliberations were held and a proposal was submitted by Mandi to the State Government for approval, who, in turn, has rejected the said proposal. That decision of the State Government is not the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
W.A. No.437/2015, W.A. No.447/2015, W.A. No.449/2015, W.A. No.475/2015, W.A. No.476/2015, W.A. No.487/2015, W.A. No.492/2015, W.A. No.643/2015 None appears for the appellants.
The issue raised in these appeals is identical to the issue decided in W.A. No.427/2015. Nevertheless, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
W.A. No.474/2015In this appeal, appellant- Sanjay Jain has appeared in person and seeks liberty to address the Court as his Advocate has expressed inability to appear before the Court, because of the call given by the M.P. Bar Council to abstain from Court work for today.
As in the companion case (W.A. No.427/2015)
---5---
decided today, we permitted this appellant to address the Court.
The issue raised in this appeal is identical to the issue already decided in W.A. No.427/2015 today. For the same reasons, even this appeal fails on the same terms.
Dismissed accordingly.
W.P. No.18425/2015Petitioner No.1 - Sanjay Jain and Petitioner No.5 - Vishnu Singh Rajput present in person.
They sought liberty to address the Court as their Advocate has expressed inability to appear before the Court, because of the call given by the M.P. Bar Council to abstain from Court work for today. We permitted them to argue in person.
The relief claimed in this writ petition is, essentially, to set aside the decision of the State Government dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure P-1), rejecting the proposal submitted by the Mandi.
The petitioners had participated in the auction process and were the highest bidder. They, however, did not fulfill their obligation to pay the balance auction price within the time prescribed as per the auction condition. Since the auction bid was not confirmed in favour of the petitioners
---6---
on that account, they had challenged the action of Mandi by way of writ petition. That writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which companion writ appeals were preferred by the petitioners. The said writ appeals have been dismissed today after considering the submission raised therein.
The cause for filing of this writ petition is with reference to the proposal submitted by the Mandi, which was the outcome of deliberations between the parties as per the liberty given to them by the Court during the pendency of the writ appeal. The Court had given option to the parties to explore possibility of amicable settlement as per law. That, however, did not mean that the settlement could be arrived at on terms contrary to the statutory provisions and disregarding the statutory duties and functions of Mandi. Indeed, Mandi submitted proposal to the State Government. However, that has been duly considered by the State Government and rejected.
The question is: whether the decision of the State Government can be said to be unjust and arbitrary? The proposal as submitted was on the premise that it was open to Mandi to extend the time to pay the amount or adopt equitable approach in the matter. In the companion writ appeals we have observed that the learned Single Judge has
---7---
already examined this aspect of the matter and rightly found that the obligation to pay the amount was as per the statutory provision. The statutory provision referred to, Rule 10 (1) (4), is a self operative provision which mandates confirmation of sale in favour of the second highest bidder, who has offered more than the reserved price, if the highest bidder fails to pay the balance auction price within the prescribed time. There is no statutory provision empowering Mandi to extend the time limit prescribed in that auction notice. Accepting the proposal of Mandi would entail in perpetrating the illegality and indirectly confirming the sale in favour of petitioners by modifying the auction condition.
Considering the fact that there was no option with Mandi but to confirm the sale in favour of the second highest bidder; and if that option was not to be acted upon, the only other option before Mandi would be to resort to a fresh auction process in respect of the concerned premises. It has come on record that Mandi has already resorted to such mechanism of conducting auction in respect of other premises in the year 2014. It is open to Mandi to resort to that option even in respect of subject premises, but not arrive at some amicable arrangement which may not be commensurate with the fair market price in respect of the
---8---
stated premises in respect of which the petitioners have staked their claim on the basis of having participated in the auction process held sometime back. That auction process cannot and has not created any vested right in the petitioners.
Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted in this writ petition.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
Anchal