TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MED [ 1975 (12) TMI 167 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved - It is also required to be noted that the sale was confirmed in favour of the Appellant by the Commissioner, Endowments Department after obtaining the report of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have ordered re-auction of the land in question after a period of 23 years of confirmation of the sale and execution of the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser by observing that the value of the property might have been much more, otherwise, the object and purpose of holding the public auction and the sanctity of the public auction will be frustrated. Unless there is concrete material and it is established that there was any fraud and/or collusion or the land in question was sold at a throw away price, the sale pursuant to the public auction cannot be set aside at the instance of strangers to the auction proceeding. n the present case, though Shri Jagat Kumar immediately aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Temple Trust issued tender/public notice to sell the land in question by way of an open auction in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments on 22.05.1998. As per the notice, the date and time of the open auction was 24.06.1998 at 11.00 AM and the interested participants had to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as EMD. Forty-five persons participated including the Appellant herein - K. Kumara Gupta. At this stage, it is required to be noted that Shri L. Kantha Rao, original writ Petitioner did not participate in the auction and nor did he deposit the EMD of Rs. 20,000/-. 2.2 Thereafter the auction took place on 24.06.1998 in which 45 people participated. The Appellant herein was declared as the highest bidder quoting price of Rs. 5,55,000/- per acre against the expected price of Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, thereafter, the highest offer of the Appellant was Rs. 13,01,000/- per acre as per the bid submitted by the Appellant herein. Thus, the Appellant became the highest bidder fixing the price at Rs. 13,01,000/- per acre. The Appellant deposited Rs. 7,85,000/- being 1/3rd of the bid amount immediately as per the tender conditions. It appears that thereafter the first round of litigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Temple Committee not to execute the sale deed in respect of the auctioned land. Vide interim order dated 05.01.1999, the High Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings subject to the condition that he furnishes a bank guarantee of a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs within two weeks from the date of the said interim order. That during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and in light of the interim order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 41 of 1999, the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department unilaterally passed an order dated 10.02.1999 cancelling the auction held on 24.06.1998. The Executive Officer of the Temple was instructed to conduct a re-auction for the land in question keeping the upset price of Rs. 30 lakhs. As the order dated 10.02.1999 was passed without hearing the Appellant, the Appellant preferred revision before the Government Under Section 93 of Act of 1987. The Government stayed the order dated 10.02.1999 of the Commissioner vide its order dated 08.03.1999. Questioning the order of the Government dated 08.03.1999 staying the order of the Commissioner dated 10.02.1999, the said Shri L. Kantha Rao filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 25407 of 1999 and has directed the authorities concerned to conduct the re-auction of the entire land by fixing the upset price higher than what had been fixed earlier by observing that since more than twenty years had elapsed from the date of issuance of GO Rt. No. 1808 dated 26.11.1999 and price of the land in question had risen. The Division Bench of the High Court has further observed that as the Appellant has agreed and even the learned Single Judge had directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as the said Shri L. Kantha Rao furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 30 lakhs and therefore, the Temple would get more than Rs. 30 lakhs. While passing the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also observed that the writ Petitioner as well as the Appellant shall also be allowed to participate in the re-auction, if they are otherwise eligible. 2.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the original Respondent No. 4 before the High Court, the auction purchaser has preferred the present appeals. 3. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Shri L. Kantha Rao from participating in the public auction and submit his offer. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Raval, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant that as such the Division Bench of the High Court has not at all observed and/or held that the auction was illegal and/or there was any illegality in holding the public auction. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has passed the impugned judgment and order and has directed for re-auction solely on the ground that subsequently the said Shri L. Kantha Rao offered Rs. 30 lakhs, which was higher than the amount paid by the Appellant even when the learned Single Judge had also directed the Appellant to pay a total sum of Rs. 30 lakhs, which the Appellant had agreed; therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has presumed that the value of the land would have been much more than Rs. 30 lakhs at the time when it was put up for auction/sale. It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that as such the said L. Kantha Rao had no locus to challenge the sale in favour of the Appellant, who was the highest bidder firstly, on the ground that he did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners had no locus standi to raise the objection as well as to file the writ petitions before the High Court as admittedly they did not participate in the auction. 4.8. It is further submitted that the Temple Trust never objected at any stage of auction or after the auction until the order/judgment dated 02.02.2018 was rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the Executive officer of the Temple, who was aware of the entire proceedings including conducting of the public auction and after receiving the full and total consideration could not have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge rendered on 02.02.2018 at a belated stage, i.e., almost after twenty years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. It is submitted that filing of an appeal by the Temple Trust against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 before the Division Bench without any allegation of fraud or collusion against it reeks of mala fides and collusion, which ought not to have been allowed. In fact, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have entertained the same, is the submission. 4.9. Making the above submissions, it is urged that the Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and willing to purchase the property in question at Rs. 30 lakhs. It is submitted that thereafter the State Government vide its order dated 26.11.1999 fixed the reserved at Rs. 32 lakhs and allowed the parties to participate in the auction. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts evidently reveal that within a period of one year, the price of the property significantly increased by more than 125%. That the value of the property, as on date, is about 15 crores. It is submitted that therefore in the interest of the Deity, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court may not be interfered with. 5.2. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Princess Fatima Fauzia and Anr. v. Syeed UI-Mulk alias Nawab Saheb Chathari and Ors. AIR 1979 AP 229, it is submitted that as held the Division Bench of the High Court, the authorities ought to have permitted re-auction where, in case of a trust, the consideration is inadequate. 5.3. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the price fetched is adequate - especially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing for the respective parties at length. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has ordered re-auction of the land in question by fixing the upset price more than what has been fixed earlier by observing that since more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of the issuance of G.O. dated 26.11.1999, it is in the interest of the Temple that the property in auction is put to re-auction. However, it is required to be noted that the Appellant purchased the property in question in a public auction, which took place on 24.06.1998. He was found to be the highest bidder, who offered Rs. 13,01,000/- per acre. It is also required to be noted that in the said auction, which took place on 24.06.1998, in all 45 people participated. The auction was conducted after following due procedure under the provisions of the Act of 1987 and the auction was conducted by none other than the Executive Officer of the Temple Trust. It is also to be noted that after receiving a detailed report of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide order dated 22.12.1998 confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given any finding that the auction, which was conducted/held on 24.06.1998 was in any way irregular and/or illegal. Even the Division Bench of the High Court has as such not set aside the auction/sale in favour of the Appellant, however, it has ordered re-auction by observing that as Shri L. Kantha Rao deposited a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 1999 and as even the learned Single Judge had also directed the Appellant to pay a total sum of Rs. 30 lakhs, which the Appellant had agreed, the Division Bench of the High Court has observed that the value of the property can be said to be much more than what was realized in the public auction. 8.1. Once the Appellant was found to be the highest bidder in a public auction in which 45 persons had participated and thereafter when the sale was confirmed in his favour and even the sale deed was executed, unless and until it was found that there was any material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public auction and/or auction/sale was vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it is not open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of a highest bidder on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular is discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the Petitioner to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other well-established self-devised Rules of practice, such as the availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of the Petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the courts in weeding out a large number of writ petitions at the initial stage with consequent saving of public time and money. In the aforesaid decision, it was also observed that despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved. 8.2. It is also required to be noted that the sale was confirmed in favour of the Appellant by the Commissioner, Endowments Department after obtaining the report of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have ordered re-auction of the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by Shri Jagat Kumar and the subsequent offer made by Shri L. Kantha Rao appears to be made only to frustrate the auction proceedings with a mala fide intent. As observed hereinabove, if there was any error in the decision-making process adopted by the authority, the remedy available was to question the sale deed in an appropriate proceeding available under the law and not by filing a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.4. The Division Bench of the High Court has observed that as the said Shri L. Kantha Rao submitted a bank guarantee of Rs. 30 lakhs as he offered to pay Rs. 30 lakhs and even the learned Single Judge had also directed the Appellant to pay a total sum of Rs. 30 lakhs against his original offer and the Appellant had agreed to pay the same, the High Court has presumed that the value of the property at the time of auction would have been much more. There was no concrete material before the Division Bench of the High Court to come to such a conclusion that what was received in the public auction in the year 1998 was a lesser amount and/or at the relevant time, the valuation of the property was much more than the highest bid received. Merely be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter stage cannot be accepted and they are estopped from raising objections after conducting the sale proceedings.... 12. Respondent No. 4 has not approached this Court with clean hands. He has no locus standi. He did not participate in the tender-cum-auction and when 45 persons participated in tender-cum-auction, nothing prevented the 4th Respondent to participate in tender-cum-auction proceedings. Mere depositing the money saying that the amount would fetch more is of no argument that can be looked into without establishing malafides or fraud played by the vendor or vendee. No relief can be granted to Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. 14. Once the contractual obligation has been completed by both parties and sale deed is executed, the second Respondent has no jurisdiction in the matter to cancel the same and it is the competent Court of law which has jurisdiction to decide the validity. 8.7. None of the aforesaid aspects have been dealt with and/or considered by the Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. Even it was the specific case of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge that the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a litigation with a private mala fide interest as the original writ Petitioner had no locus to file such a case, not being a participant in the auction and being unable to point out any irregularity or illegality in the auction. 8.10. Even the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order in an appeal preferred by the Temple Trust for the simple reason that it was the Executive Officer of the Temple Trust, who had conducted the auction; it was the Executive Officer, who had obtained the Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax department and who executed the sale deed in favour of the highest bidder - Appellant herein. At no point of time till the judgment and order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the Temple Trust had challenged the auction/sale on the ground that the amount realized was inadequate. Therefore, the Temple Trust could not have challenged their own decision, which they had never challenged earlier. 8.11. Similarly, the appeal preferred by the heirs of Shri L. Kantha Rao also ought not to have been entertained. Shri L. Kantha Rao never participated in the auction. He never submitted any offer. The proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the Petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; (5) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation; and (6) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 8.13. The submission on behalf of the Respondents that as on today the value of the property is Rs. 15 crores and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
