Gujarat High Court
Ajitbhai Chandrakantbhai Rajpara vs The Jt. Charity Commissioner, Rajkot on 4 August, 2021
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/SCA/10741/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10741 of 2021
=============================================================
AJITBHAI CHANDRAKANTBHAI RAJPARA
Versus
THE JT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER, RAJKOT
=============================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. NIDHI VYAS ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 04/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Shri Nehal Gandhi on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nidhi Vyas on behalf of the respondent no.1.
2. It is the contention of learned Advocate Shri Gandhi in this petition that the petitioner had submitted a demand draft wit the respondent no.1 as the petitioner wanted to participate in the auction for the industrial plot, of the ownership of respondent no. 2-Trust. According to the learned Advocate such demand draft has been submitted by the petitioner in consonance with the public notice published in Gujarati newspaper 'Sandesh' on 04.03.2021 with regard to the said auction. It is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Gandhi that as per the relevant conditions, the demand draft was to be given for an amount equivalent to 50% of the auction price fixed for the plot of land and whereas the date of opening of the bids was fixed as 22.04.2021 on which date on account of the second wave of the pandemic the sealed covers could not be opened.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 07 13:39:33 IST 2021C/SCA/10741/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2021
4. Learned Advocate further submits that while the validity of the demand drafts was getting over before 22.06.2021 that was the next date fixed by the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 in the interest of the trust had directed the bidders including the petitioner to provide a fresh demand draft on or before 12.07.2021 and whereas the matter was fixed on 15.07.2021. That the petitioner had submitted an application on 22.06.2021 requesting the respondent no.1 to return the old demand draft to enable the petitioner to submit a fresh demand draft since the validity of the demand draft was over. It is submitted by the petitioner that vide impunged order dated 22.06.2021, the respondent no.1 had rejected such request and whereas the petitioner had again vide application dated 15.07.2021 submitted to the respondent no.1 that on account of asking the bidders to submit fresh demand draft of 50% of the amount again virtually the bidders were required to deposit 100% of the amount in question and therefore, two of the bidders had withdrawn their bids and whereas the petitioner had submitted that since the demand draft submitted by the petitioner had lost its validity, the same may be returned to him and whereas the petitioner would submit a fresh demand draft. The petitioner had further given an application dated 20.07.2021 where the petitioner had prayed that he may return the old demand draft and only by submitting a new demand draft he may be permitted to participate in the tender process, which request is rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2021, under a mistaken impression that it was the petitioner who had given request to withdraw from the tender process. At this stage it is clarified by the present petitioner that the petitioner had never submitted any application for withdrawing from the tender process. The application for withdrawing from the tender process was given by one Ashokbhai Amarshibhai Kansagara who had also submitted his bid for participating in the auction. Learned Advocate Shri Gandhi submits that while the date of opening of the bids is tomorrow on 05.08.2021 whereas the petitioner at the relevant point of time as per the tender notice had submitted the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 07 13:39:33 IST 2021 C/SCA/10741/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2021 demand draft as required by respondent no.1 and since it was not on account of any fault on behalf of the petitioner no.1 that the process could not go on further and the demand draft had lost its validity, therefore, the request of the petitioner to return the demand draft and permit the petitioner to submit the demand draft and to defer the further proceedings till such time was just and reasonable ought not to have rejected by respondent no.1.
5. As against the same learned Assistant Government Pleader has strongly resisted this petition by submitting that when two other persons who had also submitted their bids along with the present petitioner had submitted a fresh demand draft, the petitioner also should have complied with the condition imposed by the respondent no.1 and should have submitted a fresh demand draft and he should not have made the request for return of the demand draft which has led to the delay of the proceedings as such. Learned AGP further submitts that the return of the demand draft, would create unnecessary complications since the same would entail opening of the sealed cover and an entire exercise would have to be done by the respondent no.1 since the auction proceedings are of such nature that they have to be kept confidential as far as practicable.
6. Learned AGP further submits that since the condition of the public notice requires that the demand draft has to be submitted by any interested participant, the petitioner ought not to have raised some technical issues before the respondent no.1. As such the learned AGP could not contradict the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Gandhi that the present petitioner had never withdrawn his bid and the bid had been withdrawn by one Ashokbhai Amarshibhai Kansagra who was a co-participant.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates, this Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 07 13:39:33 IST 2021 C/SCA/10741/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2021 Court is of the opinion that the request of the petitioner prima facie appears to be reasonable more so in view of the fact that at the relevant point of time to participate in the tender process the petitioner had complied with condition of submitting demand draft equivalent to 50% of the amount of tender. The proceedings could not be taken forward on account of the second wave of the pandemic and whereas the request of the petitioner to return the demand draft which had outlived his validity with a condition to submit a fresh demand draft ought not to have been rejected by the respondent authorities more so when it appears that the rejection was on account of an inadvertent consideration that the present petitioner had withdrawn his bid which does not appear to be the case here.
8. In this view of the matter, the following directions are passed :
(a) The respondent no.1 shall return back the sealed cover to the present petitioner containing the demand draft submitted by the petitioner and whereas the petitioner shall within a period of 6 days from the date of return of the sealed cover submit a fresh sealed cover containing fresh demand draft of the same amount of as the demand draft which has expired and whereas the copy of the expired demand draft shall be obtained by the petitioner from the bank concerned and shall be submitted along with the fresh demand draft so as to ensure that there shall not be any complications later on as regards the amount in question.
( b) It is made clear that this arrangement is qua the present petitioner only and whereas this arrangement should not be construed as permitting other persons who have either left the bidding process midway or who have not applied at all, to submit fresh bids.
(c) It is also made clear that these directions are only with regard to the demand draft of the present petitioner and whereas all the other conditions as stipulated in the public notice referred to hereinabove should be strictly Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 07 13:39:33 IST 2021 C/SCA/10741/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2021 followed by all concerned.
8. For the purpose of submitting compliance of this order, S.O to 01.09.2021.
9. The next date of auction is fixed on 13.08.2021.
10. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 07 13:39:33 IST 2021