Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIV PRATAP versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiv Pratap v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 47666 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19834 (22 November 2006)

 

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

Hon.R.P.Misra, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Akhilesh Singh and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction which had been held on 15.05.2006. According to the condition, the petitioner was to deposit ¼ of the total auction money on the same day i.e. 15.5.2006.  The petitioner has deposited the said amount but for the rest amount, which was to be deposited by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of auction has not been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner himself has admitted this fact that due to illness he could not deposit the amount in time. After recovery the petitioner with a medical certificate has submitted an application to accept the balance amount according to the conditions of the auction dated 15.5.2006 but the respondents have cancelled the auction and are going for re- auction and the amount deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited.

From the perusal of the record it is clear that there is no dispute that the petitioner was the highest bidder and had deposited one-fourth amount within time but the petitioner has not fulfilled the other relevant conditions of the auction dated 15.5.2006.

In view of the aforesaid fact, as the petitioner is a defaulter which is admitted by the petitioner that he could not deposit the amount within time, as such, we are not inclined to interfere while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

 

22.11.2006

SKD/47666/2006


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.