TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Nos. 3 and 4 were participants in the auction. The terms and conditions of sale contained in exhibit P-1 provided that the properties were being sold by the auctioneer under instructions from the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, and the auction was subject to confirmation by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. It also set out a power in the Commissioner to cancel or postpone the sale in the following words : "The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, reserves the right to cancel or postpone the auction at any time. He also reserves the right to reject any bid, including the highest bid, without assigning any reason. In such an event, the money already paid will be refunded to the intending purchaser without any interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause 15 of exhibit P-1, the Chief Commissioner cancelled the auction in public interest. The petitioner whose highest bid thus stood cancelled has come up with this original petition challenging the order of the first respondent cancelling the auction. Even at the outset, it is to be observed that the sale in question is not a statutory sale and in fairness I must observe that learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue that it is a sale in exercise of any power under the statute. Obviously, it was a sale by public advertisement and is governed by the provisions of law governing sale of property by auction. Therefore, it is really in the realm of contract and normally not within the purview of this court under article 226 of the Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in terms of exhibit P-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that after passing exhibit P-3 order cancelling the auction in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 60,50,000, the first respondent should have compelled respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to deposit a higher amount in case a lesser price alone could be fetched at the reauction. I have given my anxious consideration to these submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. No doubt there is some justification in the complaint of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forward his case regarding the allegations against the manner of the conduct of the auction by the second respondent auctioneer. But all the same the right put forward by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear from clause 15 of exhibit P-1. Though there is a sentence stating that the order of the first respondent annulling the auction was the result of some behind the scene activities and instructions, there is no allegation of any mala fides against the first respondent. There is also no material to support the allegation of any behind the scene activities and instructions referred to in the original petition. It is, therefore, not possible prima facie to accept the case that the exercise of power by the first respondent was not bona fide and was not really in public interest. Therefore, even if there is some substance in the complaint of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity of being heard, since what has been done is somet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
