Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIV SHAKTI METAL versus ARUN KUMAR & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiv Shakti Metal v. Arun Kumar & Another - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 2960 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3212 (20 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.48

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 2960 of 2005

Shiv Shakti Metal Iron Scrap.............................. Petitioner

Vs.

Arun Kumar and another....................... Respondents

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed, interalia, praying for punishing the opposite parties for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28327 of 2005, and the order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005.

It may be mentioned that the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28327 of 2005 filed by the petitioner-applicant was disposed of by the said order dated 26.7.2005 in terms of the said order dated 26.7.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005 filed by M/s Dudhiya Iron Scrap Company.

Relevant portion of the said order dated 26.7.2005 passed in the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005 is quoted below:

"This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that the petitioner was the highest bidder in pursuance of the public auction notice dated 18.10.2004, held on 25.11.2004 but the same has not been granted approval by the Competent Authority which has rather rejected his bid on non-existing ground that the property would have fetched more amount than offered by the petitioner.

Shri H.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's bid was disapproved on a non-existing ground. A large number of persons have entered into the negotiations with the respondent-authorities and offered higher amount after the auction was over, though the same persons had not given bid to that extent earlier, which was not permissible in law. Hence the order impugned dated 05.03.2005 is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as the bid given by the petitioner required approval of the higher authority and the authority concerned did not approve it on the ground hat the property could fetch a higher amount and that stands fortified since other persons, though did not give the bid for a higher amount, were willing to enhance it substantially at the subsequent stage. Therefore, according to him, no interference is called for."

"............................................................"

"Undoubtedly, we do not approve the method adopted by the respondent-authorities to negotiate with any private party after the auction was over but considering the fact that amount offered by them subsequently was much higher than the highest bid given by the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The petition stands disposed of finally with a direction that a fresh notice/re-advertisement be published in the newspapers having wide circulation and the auction may be held in accordance with law but after the auction is concluded, there should be no private negotiation by the authority with any private party. However, if the circumstances so demand, all the bidders should be called for negotiation and there will be no prohibition for the authority concerned to have the reserved price for starting the auction itself.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated."

It appears that pursuant to the said orders, each dated 26.7.2005, passed in the aforementioned Writ Petitions, the Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand-2, Pipri, Sonebhadra issued communication dated 2.9.2005 for publication of the advertisements regarding auction in the newspapers. Copy of the said communication dated 2.9.2005 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition.

I have heard Shri M. Shahanshah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner - applicant at length, and perused the record.

It is submitted by Shri Khan that in view of the directions contained in the said order dated 26.7.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2005, as quoted above, it was not open to the opposite parties to invite public at large by the said advertisements to participate in the auction to be conducted, pursuant to the said order dated 26.7.2005. It is further submitted by Shri Khan that in view of the said order dated 26.7.2005, as quoted above, the bidding should have been confined only to the ten bidders, who had participated in the earlier auction.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, I find myself unable to accept the same.

A perusal of the directions contained in the said order dated 26.7.2005, as quoted above, clearly shows that the Court directed for issuance of fresh notice/re-advertisement to be published in the newspapers having wide circulation in regard to the auction to be conducted, pursuant to the said order dated 26.7.2005. It is obvious that the intention of the Court was that wide publicity should be given to the auction to be conducted so that large number of persons may participate in the auction. In my opinion, there is nothing in the directions contained in the said order dated 26.7.2005, as quoted above, suggesting that the bidding for fresh auction is to be confined only to the ten bidders who had participated in the earlier auction.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Contempt Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 20.9.2005

Safi (cp 2960/05)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.