Allahabad High Court
Ish Kumar Vlecha vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:221931-DB Reserved Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17108 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ish Kumar Vlecha Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)
1. Facts of this case are unusual and disturbing. Extremely wild and contumacious allegations have been levelled against sitting and retired judges of this Court, by the petitioner in person. Criminal contempt proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the matter, it would be apt to refer to the background facts.
2. Petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha is primarily aggrieved by the action of respondent U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Parishad'), in not considering his application for allotment of plots in a scheme advertised by the Parishad. The petitioner initially approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23656 of 2018 against the State of U.P. and the Parishad wherein following reliefs were sought:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned auction notice published in daily news paper Amar Ujala dated 05.07.2018 and its after effects etc. for future too and in respect of properties only of Saharanpur District [Meerut Zone), (Annexure No. 2 to this writ claim representation of rights).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS in the alternative commanding the Parishad respondents to hold the concern auction only from amongst the old depositors those participants who tried to deposit token money prior to fixed date 15.01.2018 accepting amount deposited on receipt issued by respondent through bank corrected its Account number.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents not to issue any fresh auction notice in future with regard to property of Sahranpur and to provide right account number and permit the petitioner to deposit rest returned amount digital mode also and to reimburse for the losses sustained by to the extent as referred in paragraph.... Of this writ claim representation.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to pay 18% monthly compound interest at the deposited token money to the petitioner and other depositors too till the date of its payment alike imposed upon their allottees by the respondents' policies.
(v) issue a wait, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to pay the compensation (Rs. 12,00,000/-) (compelled to born economical, mental and physical losses) plus 18% monthly compound interest to the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case considering the age of the petitioner also.
vi) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
vii) To award the cost of the present writ claim representation in favour of petitioner."
3. In the aforesaid petition, apart from highlighting petitioner's grievance in respect of the allotment of plot scandalous and sweeping remarks were made against the judges of this Court. When the petition was heard by the Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, exception was taken to the wild allegations made in the petition. This is reflected from the following orders passed by the Court on 13.7.2018:-
"Heard Mr. Ish Kumar Valecha, the petitioner in person, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Habib Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
Counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, invites our attention to the allegations made in paragraph Nos. 46 and 47 of the writ petition and Annexure No. 6, which is a representation made by the petitioner in person to the President of India and others. He has made extremely wild and contumacious allegations against the Judges of the High Court. In the open Court he reiterates all those allegations. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, we issue criminal contempt notice against the petitioner in person returnable in two weeks. Petitioner in person waives notice and undertakes to submit his reply within two weeks. Office is directed to register a criminal contempt against the petitioner in person and place it before the appropriate Bench after two weeks.
S.O. to 27.7.2018."
4. Pursuant to the above directions issued by this Court, contempt proceedings have been registered against the petitioner as Criminal Contempt No. 24 of 2018. In this criminal contempt notices have been issued to the petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha. The petitioner has submitted his reply in the matter, reiterating the allegations all over again against the judges of this Court. This contempt petition is tagged alongwith the writ petition listed before us.
5. It transpires that while aforesaid contempt petition was pending the Writ Petition No. 23656 of 2018 came to be heard by this Court and disposed of on 4.10.2018, vide following orders:-
"U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad by its notice dated 5.7.2018 notified allotment of land by way of auction under different schemes within the jurisdiction of different development authorities of the State of U.P. The grievance of the petitioner is that he tried to deposit the token money with the respondents in earlier auction but his claim was rejected purely on technical grounds which are having no relevance with the issue concerned. It is stated that the token money was deposited in the account of development authority concerned by the petitioner through the process of NEFT. The respondents have laid a condition to deposit the token money through a demand draft only and in light of this condition the petitioner's claim was rejected. According to him in light of development of the technology the respondents should have accepted the token money through NEFT or RTGS. It is asserted that the purpose of having token money stood served even by depositing the money through NEFT.
Having considered the facts stated by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing the Commissioner (Housing), U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law. The Commissioner shall also consider the issue with regard to refund of the amount, if any, is deposited by the petitioner through NEFT/RTGS.
With these observations writ petition stands disposed of."
6. In furtherance of the above directions, the grievance of the petitioner was examined by the Housing Commissioner, U.P., on merits and rejected vide order dated 3.12.2018. It is this order dated 3.12.2018 which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition No. 17108 of 2019. The State of U.P. has been impleaded as respondent no. 1; whereas Housing Commissioner of the Parishad is impleaded as respondent no. 2. In the petition of 2019 following prayers are made:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 and its after effects etc. for future too and in respect of properties only of Saharanpur District [Meerut Zone], (Annexure No. 3 to this writ claim representation of rights).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS in the alternative commanding the Parishad respondents to hold the concern auction only among the old depositors those participants who tried to deposit token money prior to fixed date 15.01.2018 accept in amount deposited on receipt issued by respondent through bank corrected its Account number.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to pay 18% monthly compound interest at the deposited token money to the petitioner and other depositors too till the date of its payment alike imposed upon their allottees as per the respondent's policies/rules etc.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to pay the compensation (Rs.12,00,000/-) (compelled to born economical, mental and physical losses) plus 18% monthly compound interest to the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case considering the age of the petitioner also.
(v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent to pay Rs. 60,000/ (Rupees Sixty thousands) in occurrence of the previously filed/presented two petitions and Rs. 2500/- in respect of Lucknow visit for two days.
(vi) issue a writ, order or directions to the concerned officers and officials of this court to affix the date as fixed and to expeitly decision in the light of paragraphs No.
(vii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(viii) To award the cost of the present writ claim representation in favour of the petitioner."
7. Undeterred by the pendency of contempt petition, the petitioner in person continued to level allegations against the Judges of this Court and make wild allegations in his subsequent petition no. 17108 of 2019. When the petition was heard by a different Bench on 20.5.2019 the Court took strong exception to the allegations levelled therein and ordered criminal proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha, once again, vide following orders:-
"Heard Sri Ish Kumar Vlecha, the petitioner in person, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.
Before coming to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition we would like to reproduce paragraphs 14, 15, 17, 20 and 26 of the writ petition.
"14. That the judges acts, working and function etc. have converted alike "Ghratrasht" of Mahabharat in present era and the comparatively competant, powerful, mighty and having high profile persons alike Lalu Prasad and Qazi Rasid Masood the than M.P. etc. are their son alike "Duryodhan" including the comparatielly competent executives of the Executive of India. They may admit in the government hospital/hospitals for a such long period. Incompetant, general, poor and helpless peoples died in jail with out raising any if and but. Neither Judges of the judiciary nor some one else bother for their critical to critical and serious to serious illness and their treatment. My dear foolish, senseless and partial etc. judges each and every body knows about your acting, working and fundtioning etc. Due to your foolish, senseless and partial working and functing etc. judiciary has been also lost his goodwill, faith and dignity too. Being inmate, Lalu Pd. is enjoying twitter facilities too. neither eyes are seeing nor the brain i.e. judges of the Indian Judiciary became blind either way or way both way.
15. That so called justice is only reserved and affixed for the comparatively competant high profiles, mighty, influencive capitalist, executives, powerful and legislatives and injustice is only for poor, helpless, incompetant i.e. middle class/small tax payers of the country.
17. That the judges are the part and parcel of the same sociaty, amoung us and born with genetically selfdressed DNA of the followers of Islam and Snatan Dharm normally/Generally. They are not being import from heaven, Japan or from the era of Harish Chandra.
20. That the judges acts are alike "GHRATRASHTRA" of the present era. Comparatively mighty, competant, having high profile position/status alike Lalu Prasad and Quazi Rasid Masood etc. including executives of Executive are the dearest son of THE judges alike "DURYODHAN".
26. That dispite of the so called honest, just and impartial working functioning and acting of the public servants of all the organs including the so called worked legally as per the constitution of India, all the public servant have been lost their good will, faith and dignity. None has failth in any organs of India. To maintain the good will, faith and dignity, a demonstration was organised in the month of Feburary, 1997 before the so called supreme court of India and after that a writ was also filed in this court by the undersigned but the same was dismissed by the fool and foolish judges of this court and as well by the fool and foolish judges of the Supreme Court too in 1998."
When we specifically asked to the petitioner that we are going to issue notice to him for criminal contempt and whether he wishes to submit his reply to the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition the petitioner replied with an emphatic 'No'.
We find that these averments are abusive, contumacious and made recklessly by the petitioner to insult and ridicule the judges and bring the judiciary to disrepute.
We further find that notices of criminal contempt were issued to the petitioner in an earlier Writ Petition (C) No.23656 of 2018 filed by the petitioner and that the Writ Petition No.23656 of 2018 as well as the Contempt Application (Criminal) No.24 of 2018 are still pending.
We therefore issue notice of criminal contempt against the petitioner, who is appearing in person, returnable within two weeks.
We direct that this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for nomination to a Bench which may hear all the Criminal Contempt matters together."
8. In compliance of the above directions, a second criminal contempt has been registered against the petitioner as Criminal Contempt No. 5 of 2019. Both the criminal contempt proceedings, namely Criminal Contempt No. 24 of 2018 as well as Criminal Contempt No. 5 of 2019, have been connected alongwith the petitioner's pending writ petition no. 17108 of 2019. The petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha has been heard in person in support of the writ petition no. 17108 of 2019 and in his capacity as contemnor in the above noted Criminal Contempt Nos. 5 of 2019 and 24 of 2018.
9. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the matters on record, we deem it appropriate to deal with the writ petition No. 17108 of 2019 as well as the contempt proceedings, separately. This is particularly so, as charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha in Criminal Contempt No. 24 of 2018 and, therefore, the contempt proceedings would have to be deferred in light of the observations made hereinafter.
10. In order to effectively consider petitioner's grievance on merits, we, keep aside the criminal contempt part, for it to be taken up separately.
11. The grievance of the petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha, is taken up first, on merits. Since the petitioner is a senior citizen and has argued his case in person, we have overlooked procedural infirmities contained in his petition.
12. It transpires that the Parishad advertised an scheme for allotment of plots in several districts of U.P. including Saharanpur, Meerut etc. Shakumbari Vihar Yojna-8 of district Saharanpur was one of the schemes included in it. The list of plots in the scheme included Plot Nos. 3B-178, 3A-149 and 3D-08. Plot numbers, its area, reserved price as well as token money required to be deposited for taking part in the auction were specified in the auction notice which is part of the writ proceedings. These three plots were of the size of 300 mtrs. each and required deposit of token amount of Rs.5.55 lacs against each plot as per the auction notice. The auction was to be held on 15.01.2018. The brochure of the scheme has been annexed alongwith the supplementary counter affidavit as Annexure-2. As per the brochure the auction was to be regulated by the terms contained in the brochure and on issues not specified therein, it was to be governed by the auction regulations published in the govt. gazette on 16.07.2016. Clause 4, 10 and 11 of the conditions of allotment specifying the procedure to be followed for making bid either at the auction or by way of sealed tenders are reproduced hereinafter:-
"4. जो भी इच्छुक क्रेता नीलामी प्रक्रिया द्वारा सम्पत्ति लेना चाहता है, उसे परिशिष्ट "क" में अंकित सम्पत्ति मूल्य के अनुसार टोकन धनराशि का डिमांड ड्राफ्ट जो "उ०प्र० आवास एवं विकास परिषद" के पक्ष में इस हेतु निर्दिष्ट नगर में देय होगा, नीलामीः स्थल पर निर्धारित प्रारूप पर अपने प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ निर्धारित अवधि में प्रस्तुत करते हुए पीठासीन अधिकारी के हस्ताक्षरों से युक्त टोकन प्राप्त करना होगा। बोली वही व्यक्ति बोल सकता है, जिसके नाम विधिवत टोकन निर्गत किया गया हो। नीलामी हेतु प्रस्तुत सम्पत्तियों के लिए आवेदन पत्र निर्धारित टोकन धनराशि (बैंक ड्राफ्ट) के साथ नीलामी के पूर्व स्वीकार किये जायेंगे।
10. जो भी इच्छुक क्रेता सील्ड - बिड प्रक्रिया से सम्पत्ति लेना चाहते है वह निर्धारित सील्ड - बिड प्रारूप में परिशिष्ट "क" में निर्धारित बयाना धनराशि के बैंक ड्राफ्ट के साथ निर्धारित तिथि तथा समय में निश्चित अधिकारी के कार्यालय में अवश्य प्रस्तुत करेगें।
11. सील्ड - बिड प्रपत्र में निम्नलिखित विवरणों का समावेश किया जाना अनिवार्य होगाः-
(अ) सील्ड - बिड क्रेता का नाम व पूरा पता। (सुस्पष्ट अक्षरों में) (ब) पिता/ पति का नाम। (जैसा भी स्थिति हो) (स) योजना एवं नगर का नाम, सम्पत्ति का विज्ञापित क्षेत्रफल तथा सम्पत्ति संख्या, जिसके लिए सील्ड - बिड दिया जा रहा है।
(द) सम्पत्ति के मूल्य रूप में, जो धनराशि आॅफर की जा रही है उसका अंकन प्रति वर्ग मीटर की दर से अकों तथा शब्दों में किया जायेगा। जिसमें कोई कटिंग नही होगी, अन्यता प्रार्थना - पत्र स्वीकार्य न होगा।
(य) बयाने की धनराशि एवं शेष धनराशि का भुगतान परिशिष्ट "ख" के अनुसार होगा। बिना बयाना धनराशि के प्राप्त सील्ड - बिड पर कोई विचार नही किया जायेगा। जिस लिफाफे में बिड दिया जायेगा, उसके ऊपर नगर, योजना, सम्पत्ति संख्या तथा नीलामी की तिथि स्पष्ट रूप में बिना कटिंग के अंकित की जायेगी और लिफाफे के शीर्ष पर "व्यवसायिक सम्पत्ति हेतु सील्ड - बिड" अंकित किया जायेगा, जिसमें सम्पत्ति संख्या एवं सैक्टर अंकित किया जायेगा। "
13. Schedule 'A' to the brochure of the scheme also contained specification of the plots in question with reference to its area, FAR, ground coverage, reserved price and token money etc. which are reproduced hereinafter:-
शाकुम्भरी विहार (मवीकलाँ योजना संख्या - 8) सहारनपुर।
सम्पत्तियों की श्रेणी/ प्रकार सम्पत्ति संख्या क्षेत्रफल (व०मी०में) एफ.ए.आर.
ग्राउण्ड कवरेज प्रतिशत अधिकतम ऊँचाई (मी०में) आरक्षित भूमिदर (प्र.व.मी.) फ्री - होल्ड सहित आरक्षित मूल्य (लाख में) टोकन मनी (रू० लाख में) 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 प्रीमियम हाउस 03 नग 3D - 08 300.00 1.50 55% उप विधि के अनुसार 18480.00 55.44 5.55 3B - 17B 300.00 1.50 55% उप विधि के अनुसार 18480.00 55.44 5.55 3A - 149 300.00 1.50 55% उप विधि के अनुसार 18480.00 55.44 5.55
14. Essential/main conditions of allotment, specified in the advertisement, are extracted hereinafter:-
"मुख्य नियम व शर्तेः- (1) आवेदन/सील्ड बिड फार्म सम्बन्धित शहर/योजना के सम्पत्ति प्रबन्ध कार्यालय से रू 100/-जमा कर प्राप्त किया जा सकता है। (2) आवंटन/नीलामी के माध्यम से निस्तारित होने वाली आवासीय सम्पत्तियों पर सम्पत्ति के मूल्य का 5 प्रतिशत तथा व्यवसायिक सम्पत्तियों के मूल्य का 10 प्रतिशत का बैंक ड्राफ्ट/पे-आर्डर, जो "उ०प्र० आवास एवं विकास परिषद" के नाम तथा सम्बन्धित शहर में देय हो, आवंटन हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र निर्धारित प्रारूप पर बैंक ड्राफ्ट एवं आवश्यक शपथ-पत्र सहित आवंटन की तिथि से दो दिन पूर्व तथा नीलामी हेतु सील्ड नीलामी की तिथि से एक दिन पूर्व तक संबंधित स्थानीय कार्यालय में दी जा सकती है अथवा नीलामी के दिन नीलामी प्रारम्भ होने के पूर्व टोकन प्राप्त कर खुली बोली में भाग लिया जा सकता है। (3) जाति प्रमाण-पत्र उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा निर्धारित प्रारूप पर उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा नियुक्त सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा निर्गत होना चाहिेये। (4) सम्पत्तियों का विस्तृत विवरण तथा नियम/शर्तों की जानकारी सम्बन्धित सम्पत्ति प्रबन्ध कार्यालय से प्राप्त किया जा सकता है एवं परिषद की वेबसाइट http://www.upavp.com परPublic Notice के अन्तर्गत देखी जा सकती है। (5) किसी भी विवाद की स्थिति में आवास आयुक्त का निर्णय अन्तिम एवं बाध्यकारी होगा।
नोटः- आरक्षित वर्ग की सम्पत्तियों हेतु आवेदकों को सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा निर्गत जाति प्रमाण पत्र की प्रमाणित छायाप्रति आवेदन पत्र के साथ संलग्न करना अनिवार्य है। (C) चिन्ह कार्नर सम्पत्ति का द्योतक है।"
15. Petitioner claims to have obtained application form from the Parishad upon deposit of Rs. 100/-. The brochure of the scheme apparently accompanied the application form inasmuch as its cost is specified as Rs.100/-.
16. Para 6 to 14 of petitioner's earlier writ petition no. 23656 of 2018 contains narration of fact as also his grievance in the matter which are reproduced hereinafter:-
"6. That the petitioner fulfilled all conditions by obtaining prescribed form worth Rs. 100/- each and by depositing requisite amount in respect of Token Money which was deposited and tried to deposit in the accounts (20337765287) CA 9003 and CA 9004 of only No. 20337765287 of Parishad shown on deposit slip and also the slip pasted on Almirah kept in the office of respondent no. 4 in the mentioned wrong bank A/c Nos. token money deposited through the well recognized process/mode of NEF.T./R.T.G.S. including several aspirants. The above mentioned Bank Account numbers are/were not only wrong but also against the R.B.I. instructions and directions too.
7. That the petitioner had deposited required token money accordingly in the prescribed and notified account of the Parishad. This deposit thus fulfilled the condition of deposit of Token money referred in the connection with the auction notice dated 15.01.2018 and purchased forms which was held at Meerut. The fact is undisputed and requires no evidence except the candidates who have deposited the token money through well recognized process/Mode of NEFT/RTGS. Both the above mentioned bank numbers are not only wrong but also against the R.B.I. guideline, instructions and directions.
8. That as respondents itself have shown wrong A/c No. on its deposit voucher. The token money was/were returned back in the petitioner's account too automatically. While some time returned and some time accepted. Reasoning knows better both the banks. Concerned banks are responsible for the unbearable situation including the physical, mental and economical harassment with other hurdles.
9 That the petitioner states here as a fact that several other participants had also deposited token money through the process of N.E.FT./R.T.G.S. referred above. Accordingly they had also obtained form and were present with duly fully filled up form in order to participate in the auction to be held at the allotted/indicated place of earlier auction scheduled on 15.01.2018.
10. That the petitioner presented duly filled up form containing reference of the deposit of token money referred hereto above before the competent auction authority of the Parishad at Meerut on 15.01.2018 but the said authority despite finding the form in order and being satisfied about the adequacy of the amount deposited as token money refused to issue token against the said form on the pretext that the token money deposited by the petitioner through the process of N.E.F.T./R.T.G.S. will not be entertained as the deposit should have been made only through bank draft as per rules.
11. That the petitioner was surprised to face the refusal to issue token for participation in the auction dated 15.01.2018 on the pretext referred hereto above. Because of earlier in the month of July, 2017, the deposited token money through the same style and mode of RTGS/NEFT has/have been accepted by the concerned respondents of the Parishad.
12. That the petitioner is filing herewith two photo copies of the forms presented by him which bears said endorsement as Annexure No. 3 & 3A to this writ claim representation.
13. That there were more two forms were dropped in sealed box on 14.01.2018. Both the forms are still the property of the respondents.
14. That the petitioner and his son submitted several complaints in respect of refusal to issue token etc. to the petitioner for participation in the fresh managed and to create auction scheduled instead of dated 15.01.2018 but all went in vain as reply to some complaint was baseless excuse tried to be adopted by Sampatti Prabandhak. True copies of few complaints are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to this writ representation to claim the rights."
17. In his previous Writ Petition No. 23656 of 2018, the petitioner also made following assertions in para 23 and 25:-
"23. That in the context of the facts stated in this claim representation it is submitted that only the petitioner and other applicants/aspirants who were denied participation in the earlier auction dated 15.01.2018 should be allowed participation in the forth coming auction dated 16.07.2018 ог constituted a new/fresh auction schedule and no new candidate should be allowed to bid for allotment in the said auction in the same situation, conditions and circumstances too which on 15.01.2018, no new condition etc. to apply upon them.
25. That in view of the fact that the form submitted by the petitioner digitally on 29.07.2017 was accepted and entertained the process of deposit under N.E.F.T./R.G.T.S. cannot be refused recognition."
18. Record reveals that the Housing Board issued a fresh advertisement in Hindi Daily "Amar Ujala" proposing to settle plots in different schemes of the Parishad for districts Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Meerut, Bareilly and Varanasi. The plots advertised earlier in January, 2018 against which petitioner intended to submit his bid were included in the fresh auction to be held on 16.07.2018. The petitioner, therefore, objected to fresh auction proceedings by filing Writ Petition No. 21710 of 2018 which got dismissed vide following orders:-
"Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, Advocate, holding for Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petition has rendered infructuous and may be dismissed as such.
Petition is dismissed as infructuous."
19. The Parishad, in response to petitioner's representation in the matter, informed him vide its communication dated 2.6.2018 that in the bid held on 15.1.2018, he had alleged to have deposited Rs. 1,88,000/- in the account of the Board on 10.1.2018. The petitioner was further informed that on account of complaints received the plots advertised for auction on 15.1.2018 would be re-advertised.
20. Primary grievance of the petitioner is that though he had deposited the amount for participation in the auction proceedings vide RTGS/NEFT Mode, but the Housing Board has arbitrarily declined consideration of his application, on the ground that the participation for allotment was open only for applicants who had deposited the token money by way of a bank draft. Grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that refusal by the Parishad to accept deposit of amount by RTGS/NEFT is arbitrary.
21. It is undisputed that the petitioner in person together with his son Himanshu Valecha applied for allotment of three plots, namely 3A-149, 3A-178 and 3D-08. For participating in auction of the said three plots the petitioner has made deposit of Rs.1.88 lacs, only, by the RTGS mode.
22. According to the terms of auction notice the prospective allottee had to deposit separate token amount against each plot, separately. The petitioner, therefore, was required to have deposited Rs.5.5 lacs if he intended to take part in the auction of three plots in question.
23. Petitioner's wife Smt. Neelam Valecha and their son Himanshu Valecha also submitted applications for allotment of housing plot nos.3D-49, 3D-51 and 3B-169. Against their application for allotment against three plots the token money deposited by them by way of bank draft/pay order was only Rs.1.67 lacs. The required deposit of token was much more. The six application forms submitted by the petitioner, his wife and son are annexed alongwith the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Parishad.
24. The Parishad in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by it on 18.04.2023 has alleged fraud on part of the petitioner while applying for allotment of plots. It is asserted that deposit of token money of Rs.1.88 lacs made by one Jitendra Singh for plot no.3B-169 has been fraudulently claimed to be deposited by the petitioner. Para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the Parishad is reproduced hereinafter:-
"8. That the perusal of the forms submitted by the petitioner reveals that in the -
(1) first form for property no. 3B-178 he has made interpolation in the format and has added the word NEFT which is provided no where and has annexed three details of UTR numbers of transfer of money through NEFT/ RTGS. The first UTR Number is UBINH18010427824 which is never received in the account of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad on 10th January, 2018. The second UTR number is SBIN118011689777 this money is received in the account of Parishad, the third UTR number is PSIBH18010082568 for Rs. 1.88 lacs, this money is received in the account of Parishad which has been deposited by Shri Jitendra Singh for plot no. 3B-169 but playing the fraud the petitioner procured this receipt from somewhere and fraudulently attempted to pose as if it is deposited by him.
(2) The second form deposited by the petitioner again bears interpolation by adding the word NEFT which is not in the given format nor the same is provided in the advertisement in pursuance of which the application form is submitted. This form also bears the exactly same detail of UTR numbers.
(3) The third form deposited by the petitioner again bears interpolation by adding the word NEFT which is not in the given format nor the same is provided in the advertisement in pursuance of which the application form is submitted. This form also bears the detail of the same UTR number which is never received in the office of the Parishad.
(4) The fourth form deposited by the petitioner again bears interpolation by adding the word NEFT which is not in the given format nor the same is provided in the advertisement in pursuance of which the application form is submitted. This form also bears the detail of the same UTR number which is deposited by Shri Jitendra Singh for form no. 19 property no. 3B-169 HIG but is fraudulently attempted to be used by the petitioner.
(5) The fifth form deposited by the petitioner again bears interpolation by adding the word NEFT which is not in the given format nor the same is provided in the advertisement in pursuance of which the application form is submitted. This form also bears the detail of UTR number which is never received in the office of the Parishad.
(6) The sixth form deposited by the petitioner again bears interpolation by adding the word NEFT which is not in the given format nor the same is provided in the advertisement in pursuance of which the application form is submitted. This form also bears the detail of three UTR numbers which are submitted with the first form mentioned above.
(7) The seventh form is of Shri Jitendra Singh which reveals the deposit of Rs. 1.88 lacs through NEFT deposited by him for the property no. 3B-169. The perusal of this form reveals the deposit of UTR number PSIB18010082568 dt. 10.01.2018 by him which is fraudulently attempted to be used by the petitioner. The form of Jitendra Singh is being filed here with and is marked as Annexure no. 4 to this affidavit."
25. In para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the Parishad the procedure for participating in the auction has been specified. As per it the prospective bidder could either participate in the auction by remaining present, physically, or to submit his bid in a sealed envelope. The petitioner opted for the second exigency i.e. by submitting his sealed bid. The bid submitted by the petitioner was below the reserve price. The details of the token money deposited alongwith petitioner's bid or the bid of his son and wife are also enumerated in para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"10. That to concise the submission the schedule quoted here in below reveals the entire truth as to the eligibility and unfair practice of the petitioner. It is submitted that there are two procedures for purchasing the property through auction. The first is when somebody takes the token on completion of all the required formalities and participate in the auction while being present on the auction spot and offers his bid. In this situation all the documents with regard to the formalities are examined thoroughly and only then the token is issued and on issuance of token bid is organized for the specific property among the holders of the token The second procedure is when the bids are submitted as per the ability of the bidder above to the reserved price of the property fixed by the Parishad in sealed envelop which is dropped in the bid box and is opened by the officers of the Parishad in open before all after the completion of the bid of the first category. It is relevant to state that there is no procedure to examine the sealed envelop dropped in the bid box In July 2017 the petitioner has participated through sealed bid and when the same was opened and it was found that the bid is lower than the reserved price, so the same was declined straightway and was not considered at all.
Name of the Applicant Property Detail Description of the application presented The token money amount settled by the Parishad to be deposited for participating in the auction The money transferred by the petitioner Shri Himanshu Valecha and Sri Ish Kumar Valecha 3A-149 Bid Form Rs. 5.55 Lakh Petitioner deposited only 1.88 lakh and enclosed the same receipt in all the applications Shri Himanshu Valecha and Sri Ish Kumar Valecha 3B-178 Token Form Rs. 5.55 Lakh do Shri Himanshu Valecha and Sri Ish Kumar Valecha 3D-08 Token Form Rs. 5.55 Lakh do Name of the Applicant Property Detail Description of the application presented The token money amount settled by the Parishad to be deposited for participating in the auction The money transferred by the petitioner Smt. Neelam Valecha and Shri Himanshu Valecha 3D-49 Bid Form Rs. 1.67 Lakh Petitioner deposited only 1.88 lakh and enclosed the same receipt in all the applications Smt. Neelam Valecha and Shri Himanshu Valecha 3D-51 Bid Form Rs. 1.67 Lakh do Smt. Neelam Valecha and Shri Himanshu Valecha 3B-169 Bid Form Rs. 1.67 Lakh do The perusal of the schedule quoted above affirms that till the last date of deposit only Rs. 1.88 lakh was deposited by the petitioner and on the basis of that receipt three members of the family attempted to participate in auction for 6 properties. The auction is already held to settle the properties The petitioner was at all not eligible to participate in the auction on the fixed date: firstly because he has not deposited the money in the due account through the laid down procedure and if it is ignored for the sake of argument even then the token money required to be deposited on or before to the date fixed in the auction notice was quite insufficient and on the basis of one part alleged deposit the petitioner fraudulently attempted to participate in the auction held for 6 properties. It is also submitted that the petitioner has received back the part deposit made by him of Rs. 1.88 lakh through the bank draft being draft no. 365883 dt. 10.12.2018 on 20.12.2018."
26. The respondents further contend that Rs.1.88 lacs alone was deposited by the petitioner by NEFT on 10.01.2018 and its receipt has been annexed alongwith all the application forms submitted by petitioner and/or his family members i.e. his wife and son. The deposit of other amounts with the Parishad was after the date fixed for auction and therefore such deposit made after the auction cannot be taken into consideration for issuance of token for participating in the auction.
27. Petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit in reply to the averments made by the Parishad in its supplementary counter affidavit. Apart from use of expletives and adjectives the reply of the petitioner is found lacking in substance. In para 17 of the said rejoinder the petitioner has stated that the brochure contained in annexure 2 of the supplementary counter affidavit is not in public domain and may be available secretly in seven layers strong room. It is then asserted by the petitioner that on enquiry about the account number of the Parishad for deposit of amount the office bearer of the Parishad would indicate towards an almirah on which a photocopy of bank account number and the name of bank was pasted. The petitioner has suggested that a wrong account number was furnished by the Parishad itself due to which some of the deposits were made in an incorrect account by the petitioner. In para 23 the petitioner has urged that amount deposited as token against one property could be utilized for applying against other plots.
28. Para 29 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner contains his stand in specific terms and is reproduced hereinafter:-
"29. That the contents of paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the counter affidavit as stated strongly and vehemently denied and affirmed the stated contents in paragraph no. 3 of CMWP no 17108 of 2019 and stated in other both the CMWP. Parishad is authorised only one residential and one commercial cum residential property. It was clearly mentioned in the dropped and returned i.e not accepted original form that the token money may please be treated for that property which comes under the coverage of highest price. The luckily transferred token money Rs. 1,88000/+was only for that property which comes and cover the highest price. If the parishad can allot more property in compression of one. The undersigned and his ally are not only ready to the deposit token money but also deposit more than the affixed price on 15.01.2018 including 10% interest till date. When the deposited single token money can be used for more and more properties in lottery system/patron that why not for so called other illegal patron. To fulfil the goal and motto, Parishad must be adopt only lottery patron and once for all type categorised properties. Establishment of such institution/body must in the interest of the citizen not to fulfil the interest and for the enjoyment of the employees. Each and every employee has been provided free mobile facility. Why? In compression of the sanctioned posts, more employees have been appointed directly-indirectly."
29. It is in the above context that we are required to examine the legality of the order passed by the Parishad on 3.12.2018 (annexure 3 to the writ petition). This order refers to the prayers made in the writ petition. It is recorded in the order that petitioner alongwith his family members claimed issuance of five tokens against three properties advertised in the scheme and seven sealed bids were submitted against four other properties included in the scheme.
30. So far as denial of token for taking part in the auction is concerned, the order impugned states that required token amount were not deposited in the account of the Parishad, which was mandatory. Denial of token to petitioner is thus sought to be justified on the ground that in the absence of deposit of token money the petitioner was not entitled to it.
31. So far as petitioner's grievance regarding non-intimation of correct details of the bank account for depositing token money is concerned, the respondent Parishad states that the petitioner had himself deposited Rs. 1.88 lacs by way of NEFT in the correct account of the Parishad. It is therefore urged that petitioner's contention about wrong account number having been furnished to the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Other deposits of petitioner since were credited after the date of auction therefore the petitioner had no right to the issuance of token for taking part in the auction. The Parishad has asked the petitioner to receive bank draft of the amount payable from the office concerned. The respondents also submit that as and when any fresh auction proceedings are conducted in respect of the property in question the petitioner shall be at liberty to take part therein.
32. We have heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for the Parishad and have also perused the materials on record of this petition. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the plots included in the scheme advertised by the Parishad for allotment of different properties/plots in distinct categories including commercial, residential and houses etc. The auction notice published in the newspaper is annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit of the Parishad. The brochure in respect of the scheme is contained in annexure 2 to the said affidavit. Clause 4, 10 and 11 of the brochure reveals that an applicant could participate in the auction in following manner:-
(i) By securing token upon deposit of token money, specified against each property, by way of bank draft drawn in the name of Parishad in the district concerned. Only such person could take part in the auction in whose favour requisite token has been issued by the prescribed authority.
(ii) By submitting sealed bids in the manner specified in the format contained in annexure A to the brochure.
33. Clause 8 of the brochure specified that bids below the reserved price would not be entertained. Clause 8 of the brochure is reproduced hereinafter:-
"8. क्रेता आरिक्षत मूल्य से कम मूल्य पर बोली देने के लिए स्वतंत्र नहीं होंगे। पीठासीन अधिकारी व्यवसायिक सम्पत्तियों के सम्बन्ध में प्राप्त उच्चतम बोली को अपने विवेकानुसार ग्रहण करेंगे। यदि प्राप्त उच्चतम बोली आरक्षित मूल्य से कम है तो पीठासीन अधिकारी उसे किसी भी दशा में ग्रहण नहीं करेंगे।"
34. Petitioner has applied for issuance of token for participating in the auction of plot nos. 3D-08, 3B-178 and 3A-149. The token money in respect of the three plots was 5.5 lacs each. A total sum of Rs. 16.5 lacs was required to be deposited by the petitioner for obtaining token for the purpose. This however has not been done.
35. In para 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has asserted as under:-
"7. That the token money were deposited more than the required token money i.e. deposited token money amounting Rs. 1,75,000/- + Rs. 1,88,000/- + Rs. 2,80,000/- + Rs. 5,55,000/- (total Rs. 11,98000/-). Required token money for 3D-08, 3D-49 and 3D-51 less than Rs. 1,70,000/= each. Such patron and style of the required token money is also against the adopted patron and style earlier and is being adopting at the time of registration to get the property through lottery/draw. Such registration fee/token money is more less than the patron and style adopted and is being adopting in such illegal patron of auction/bid procedure. The concerned and competent officers/officials of the department are only acting, working and functioning to fulfil their own interest and enjoying the public funds and to maintain its utility only. All such units/institutions (as Developing Authority, Noida, Greater Noida and U.P.Avas Vikas Parishad) are working in financial losses but the employees of the wings/section etc. are only developing and public funds are being destroying. Original theme and motto of these Authorities and parishad totally and absolutely failed. All such Authorities and parishad i.e. the officers and officials have been became "WHITE ELEPHANT". In fact and legally there is no need of auction, patron and style must be adopted as earlier at the time of bulk registration for bulk properties. Photocopies of those letters and drafts of the returned deposited token money are being collectively filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 5 & SE to this writ petition."
36. Out of the amount referred to by the petitioner it remains undisputed that a sum of Rs. 1.88 lacs alone was transferred to the account of the Parishad on 10.01.2018 by NEFT mode. The remaining amount was credited to the account of the authority after the date of auction i.e. 15.01.2018. This is specifically stated by the respondent Parishad in para 3 of its counter affidavit. Last sentence of the para containing such recital is extracted hereinafter:-
"The petitioner has transferred Rs. 1.88 lacs by NEFT on 10.01.2018 and said receipt was attached with all applications by playing unfair practice, and rest of amount (as refunded) was transferred subsequent to 15.01.2018 (date of auction)."
37. Para 3 of petitioner's rejoinder affidavit contains denial of para 3 of the counter affidavit. While criticizing the order of the Parishad the petitioner has not disputed the factual assertion regarding deposit of only Rs.1.88 lacs by way of NEFT prior to the date of auction. The assertion of respondent that all other deposits were made after the date of auction is challenged on the ground that wrong details were furnished regarding the account of Parishad wherein the deposits were to be made. Relevant portion of para 4 of the rejoinder reads as under:-
"......Provided, printed and shown/pasted banks accounts no./nos. Were not only to misguide/mislead but also against the RBI guidelines. After filing the writ petitions, the bank account no. of Saharanpur district was not only corrected but also such corrections were made by Parishad and concerned banks in each every district......"
38. We are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioner was mislead by the Parishad by furnishing incorrect details of account wherein the deposits were to be made for obtaining token. The petitioner had transferred Rs.1.88 lacs in the correct account of the Parishad on 10.01.2018. This fact is admitted to the petitioner. If that be so, it would be difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that wrong bank details were furnished by the Parishad which led to delay in deposit of amount for securing token.
39. Major part of petitioner's grievance against the Parishad is of not accepting the deposit in its account by way of NEFT for issuing token for participating in the auction. This argument appears to be misconceived. The petitioner admittedly had not deposited the requisite amount of token money for the three plots against which he wanted tokens to be issued to him for participating in the auction.
40. Even if deposit by way of NEFT was accepted by the Parishad yet the petitioner was not entitled to issuance of token since the actual amount deposited i.e. Rs. 1.88 lacs was much below the token money specified against each plot i.e. Rs. 5.5 lacs each, aggregating Rs. 16.5 lacs upto the date of auction.
41. Moreover, deposits were to be made separately against each property advertised by the Parishad. Token was to be issued in respect of auction of plots, separately. It was not open for the petitioner to have adjusted the amount of token money deposited against one plot towards another plot.
42. We, therefore, find that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of auction advertised by the Parishad for the plot in question(s). Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to issuance of token for taking part in the auction conducted on 15.01.2018. Denial of token to petitioner, therefore, suffers from no illegality.
43. So far as the sealed auction bids are concerned, it is observed that clause 8 of the brochure categorically provided for not considering such sealed bids which offered rates below the minimum price fixed for the plot.
44. Sealed bids of petitioner and his family members clearly reveal that the bids offered by them were below the minimum reserved price of the plot and thus could not have been entertained.
45. Petitioner, therefore, had not acquired any right in respect of the advertised plots in question. His contention that fresh auction proceedings be not conducted on 16.07.2018 by the Parishad for the plots in question is misconceived and has rightly been rejected by the Parishad. The amount deposited by the petitioner was already offered for return by the Parishad on 02.06.2018 by completing necessary formalities and for the delay occasioned by the petitioner, in undertaking such formality, the respondent Parishad cannot be held liable.
46. The Housing Commissioner has otherwise observed that as and when the plots are advertised, afresh, it would be open for the petitioner to apply upon complying with the conditions of auction.
47. In view of the discussions and deliberations held above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is found to be devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date:- 21.11.2023
Ranjeet Sahu/Ashok Kr./RA
(Vinod Diwakar, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)