Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akash Rattan vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 17 December, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.12.2012
Akash Rattan
.....Petitioner.
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others.
.....Respondents.
2 Civil Writ Petition No.843 of 2011 (O&M)
Deepak Saini
.....Petitioner.
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others.
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JASBIR SINGH J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, we are proposed to decide these two writ petitions bearing CWP No. 1032 of 2011 and CWP No. 843 of 2011. However, facts are being taken from CWP No. 1032 of 2011 to dictate the order.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash auction notice dated 6.1.2011 (P-4), issued by the respondents fixing the minimum reserved price to auction dhaba sites in the area of Karnal and Sonepat situated at National Highway No. 1. Each dhaba site is measuring Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2011 (O&M) 2 16x25 metres i.e. approximately 400 square metres. As per record, the petitioner was running a dhaba at National Highway No.1 near Nameste Chowk at Karnal. In compliance to an order passed by this Court to rehabilitate the existing dhaba owners, the State of Haryana issued a scheme offering restrictive auction of 31 sites for dhaba. Vide order dated 14.1.2011, petitioner was found eligible along with 38 more applicants. Sites available, were only 31. Auction was scheduled to be held on 30.1.2008 and minimum price fixed for each site was `17.86 lacs. On the above said date, 15 sites were auctioned against price varying between `27.77 lacs up to `44.50 lacs. Petitioner came to this Court challenging the above said auction. The writ petition bearing No. 2862 of 2009 was disposed of by this Court on 28.10.2010. Relevant part of the order reads thus:-
"Mr.Batra has produced a communication dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Chief Administration, HUDA, Panchkula principally agreeing to hold a limited auction of the remaining Dhaba sites at Karnal at current prices as a last opportunity with a rider that in case of lack of competitive biding, the Presiding Officer shall reserve the right to withdraw any site from auction. This condition has been explained by Mr. Batra that in the earlier auction, one person was representing a group of Dhaba Walas to frustrate the competitive bidding. There seems to be substance in the contention. In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners have fairly conceded that the petitioners will either themselves bid for the sites or each petitioner will appoint separate attorney. Admittedly, 16 sites are available for allotment/auction. The HUDA has agreed for limited auction confined to the eligible Dhaba Walas.
Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2011 (O&M) 3In view of the above circumstances, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(1)All the 16 sites shall be put to limited auction confined to eligible Dhaba Walas;
(2)Limited auction shall be held within four months from today;
(3)Each eligible Dhaba Wala will either himself participate in the auction or appoint a separate attorney;
(4)No person shall be allowed to bid for more than one eligible Dhaba Wala; and (5)It is made clear that only those Dhaba owners who participated in the auction held on 30.1.2008 shall be eligible to make bid.
Copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file."
Thereafter, the authorities fixed reserve price to auction remaining 16 sites @ `42, 60, 625/- per site. Auction was to be conducted on 20.1.2011. At that time, this writ petition was filed stating that reserve price has been fixed arbitrarily and contrary to the provisions of policy, which has been brought on record as Annexure P-8. By making reference to Clauses No. 3 and 7 of the above said policy, it is stated that reserve fixed price is not justified. The relevant part of the policy regarding fixation of reserve price for the commercial site, reads thus:
3. "If the last auction of the commercial sites is one or more than one year old then increase at the rate of 15% p.a. or the interest as decided by the authority from time to time may be taken from the date of last auction till the date of next auction for the purpose of fixing the reserve price of the site.
4. The above reserve price will be valid for 6 months and for two auctions, for 3rd auction the average of the last 2 auction will be reduced by Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2011 (O&M) 4 25% for fixing the reserve price, but it will not be less than the original reserve price.
5. If basement is allowed in the booth sites, 25% extra may be added in the reserve price on account of provision of basement.
6. The reserve price initial will be valid for 6 months and for 2 auctions and for 3rd auction the average of the last 2 auctions will be reduced by 25% for fixing the reserve price but it will be not less than the original reserve price.
7. For subsequent auctions i.e. after the 1st auction, Zonal Administrators are competent to fix the reserve price on the basis of average of price fetched of the similar sites in previous auction.
8. Zonal Administrators are competent to devalue the reserve price by 20% i.e. @ 5% per auction in case sites are not sold in the 4 successive auctions. They are authorized to fix the reserve price by reducing it by 5% for each unsuccessful auction upto 4 auctions after which if sites are not sold, then a concrete proposal may be referred to the Chief Administrator HUDA. In any case the reserve price so fixed after reduction will not be less than the original reserve price.
We have gone through Clause No.3 and Clause No. 7 of the above said policy and are not in agreement with counsel for the petitioner that reserved priced fixed @ `42, 60,625/- is on the higher side. It is not in dispute that when the the sites in dispute were earlier auctioned in the month of January, 2008, reserve price was fixed @ `17.86 lacs per site. However, at the time of auction, the sites were sold for the amount ranging between `17.70 lacs to `44.35 lacs. We have seen the bid sheet, which has been brought on record as Annexure R-2. It has come on record that the majority of the sites were sold for an amount more than `30 lacs each.
When Clause 3 and Clause 7 are read together, it becomes Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2011 (O&M) 5 clear that for fixing the minimum reserve price, the authorities were to draw average of the price fetched for similar sites in the month of January, 2008 and subsequent escalation in price factor thereto, for three years was also to be added. In view of that, we feel that the authorities has a right to include interest @ 15% per annum in the reserved price so fixed. The reading of the above said clauses leaves no manner of doubt that price fixed is justified for the sites which are situated on the National Highway No. 1 With the above said observations, the both the writ petitions are dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 17.12.2012 Ak Sharma