Rajasthan High Court
M/S Pehlwan Agro India Private ... vs Prabhand Nideshak Rajasthan ... on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4500/2022
M/s Pehlwan Agro India Private Limited, Office At P-8 G/ Fkh 612
Devli Village, Yamuna Apartment, Holi Chok Khanpur New Delhi
110062 Through Director Jitendra Yadav R/o P-8 G/ Kfh 612
Devli Village, Yamuna Apartment, Holi Chok Khanpur New Delhi
110062
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Prabhand Nideshak Rajasthan Rajaya Audyogik Vikas
Avem Nivesh Nigam, Udyog Bhawan Tilak Marg Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. Varisht Kshetriya Prabandhak Rajasthan Rajaya Audyogik
Vikas Avem Nivesh Nigam, Shahpura Tehsil, Nimrana Jila
Alwar Rajasthan.
3. Sahayak Kshetriya Prabhandak Rajasthan Rajya Audyogik
Vikas Avem Nivesh Nigam, Shahjahapur Tehsil Nimrana
Jila Alwar Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yellop Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Chaudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
23/03/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2022 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Behror District
Alwar, dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 50/02/2022
CIS No. 3/2022 preferred against the order dated 11.01.2022
passed by learned Civil Judge, Neemrana District Alwar in Civil
Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2022 whereby the temporary
(2 of 4) [CW-4500/2022]
injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order
39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner participated in a
public auction conducted by the respondents/defendants for plot
No. 223, Ghiloth Industrial Area, Neemrana and offered the
highest bid of Rs. 5,750 per square meter. Since, the petitioner
failed to deposit the entire auction amount within the time
stipulated as also extended by the respondents, its bid was
cancelled and the advance amount barring the earnest money was
refunded. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the fresh
auction for the plot in question conducted on 06.08.2021 wherein
again, it stood as highest bidder but this time also, it failed to
deposit the auction amount within the prescribed period entailing
cancellation of its bid. The aforesaid action of the respondents was
challenged by the petitioner by way of a suit and the temporary
injunction application filed therein, was dismissed by the learned
trial Court vide its order dated 11.01.2022 and appeal
thereagainst has also been dismissed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.2, Behror District Alwar vide its judgment dated
18.02.2022.
Assailing the findings, learned counsel for the petitioner,
relying upon office order No. 01/2021 dated 22.01.2021 issued by
the respondent RIICO, submitted that the Unit Head has been
vested with a discretion to extend/regularize delay period upto 90
days for deposit of the balance auction amount with interest and
Managing Director is also empowered to grant further
extension/regularize delay period upto 90 days beyond the period
of 90 days which may be extended by the Unit Head and hence,
the petitioner was entitled to deposit the amount within the
(3 of 4) [CW-4500/2022]
extended period. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be
allowed and the order impugned be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that in the earlier auction conducted on 03.09.2020, the petitioner
failed to deposit the amount within the time prescribed and
extended and hence, its bid was cancelled. He submitted that in
the subsequent auction also, the petitioner did not deposit the
amount within the prescribed period and hence, its bid was
cancelled forfeiting the earnest money amount in terms of auction
condition. Learned counsel submitted that subsequent thereto, the
plot in question was put to auction third time wherein, one Mr. Jai
Kishan remained highest bidder and on deposition of the entire
auction amount by him, the subject plot has already been allotted
to him with its possession. He submitted that in these
circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for any interim relief.
Heard. Considered.
There is concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner
which do not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality
warranting interference of this Court under its supervisory
jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned
Courts have appreciated that the petitioner has failed to deposit
the auction amount within the stipulated period twice and hence,
no illegality was found in cancelling the bid offered by the
petitioner in the second auction. As is revealed from the
documents placed by the learned counsel for the respondents for
perusal of this Court, in the third auction of the subject plot, one
Mr. Jai Kishan remained highest bidder and on deposition of the
entire auction amount by him, not only allotment letter has been
issued but, possession of the plot in question has also been
(4 of 4) [CW-4500/2022]
handed over. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled for any interim relief otherwise also.
In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Pragat Jain/ Lakshya/160
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
