Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Anil Kumar And Another v. Nagar Palika Parishad Thru' Executive Officer & Others - WRIT - C No. 69547 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5494 (10 November 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).


Hon�??ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon�??ble Shiv Shanker, J.

The disposal of Public Property by Public Authorities must be done by public advertisement to ensure that the best possible price is received for the Public Exchequer.  Permitting disposal of property without public advertisement, on the one hand deprives other interested public of equality of opportunity for bidding for the property thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India and secondly it opens the possibility of unfair transactions on the part of the officers of public authorities.

From the order of the Commissioner which has been challenged in this writ petition it has come to our notice that the property in question was disposed of originally by the Board without any public advertisement i.e. by some kind of private negotiation with only one party i.e. petitioners.

Subsequently, there is a chain of the events, which is not relevant because this Court would not quash the impugned order under its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby restoring the transaction of disposal of property without public advertisement.

In the circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.K. Parekh, we dispose of this writ petition by directing the Respondent-Board to advertise disposal of this property by way of a public advertisement in accordance with its Rules. The petitioners will also be permitted to participate and made their offer in the tender proceedings or auction as may be permissible.  If the petitioners�?? bid succeeds, whatever amount has been deposited by the petitioners towards the property so far will be adjusted.  Further, because the amount of the petitioners is already lying with the Board, therefore the petitioners will not be required to furnish any other additional security or earnest money as a pre-condition for making their offer.

If the petitioners�?? bid does not succeed, the amount of the petitioners retained by the Municipal Board will be refunded to the petitioners within three months of the petitioners seeking refund, by making an application, along with 8% simple interest.  

In addition to this the amount paid by the petitioners towards litigation charges pursuant to the agreement between the Board and the petitioners will also be refunded to the petitioners but without any interest.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated: 10.11.2005



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


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 |

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