LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus M/S. BAN DEEP SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015) 10 S.C.R. 496 STATE OF PUNJAB v. M/S. BAN DEEP SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2006) AUGUST 25, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.] Auction - Auction process - Public auction of two properties - Deposit of earnest money with twenty five per C cent of auction bids by respondents -Auction bid marginally above the reserve price fixed by the competent authority - Subsequently decision by the appellants to re-auction the properties - Respondents not conveyed reasons for not 0 accepting their bids, which were highest as also higher than the reserve price - Challenge to - Held: Every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one - It should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at E his conclusion - High Court rightly concluded that no sustainable justification a·nd rationalization was recorded in writing at the relevant time for ordering the re-auction of only the two subject properties - It cannot be said that the Government is bound in every case to accept the highest F bid above the reserve price - Presence of cartelization or "pooling" could be a reason for the cancellation of an auction process as also the ground that the property fetched too low a bid when compared to the prevailing market price - In the instant case, however, while the latter was ostensibly the G reason behind the decision for conducting a fresh auction, there is no evidence on the record to support the said contention - Highest bids, marginally above the reserve price, were accepted in the self-same auction - Assailed H 496 STATE OF PU~JAB v. MIS. BANDEEP SINGH & ORS. 497 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] . action of the appellant is not substantiated in the noting, which A ought at least to have been conveyed to the respondents - On facts of the case, in the endeavour to do justice, respondents directed to pay the price of the land at the prevailing Circle Rates, which was accepted by the counsel for both the parties. B Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 2 SCR 272; Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 8 SSC 671: 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 675; B. Susi/a Vs. Saraswathi Ammal AIR 1970 Mad 257; Ram Kishun Vs. State ofU.P. (2012) 11SCC511: 2012 (6) SCR 105; Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd. (1993) 1 SCC 445: 1993 (1) SCR 81; Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651: 1994 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 122; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 sec 617: 2000 (1) SCR 505; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 sec 548: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 11; Jagdish Manda/ v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517: 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606- referred to. Case Law Reference (1978) 2 SCR 272 referred to. Para 4, 6 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 675 referred to. Para. 5 AIR 1970 Mad 257 referred to. Para. 5 2012 (6) SCR 105 referred to. Para. 5 1993 (1) SCR 81 referred to. Para. 5 1994 (2)Suppl. SCR 122 referred to. Para. 5 2000 (1) SCR 505 referred to. Para. 5 c D E F G H 498 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 11 referred to. 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606 referred to. Para. 5 Para. 5 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 629 B of2006 c From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9621 of 2004. WITH C.A. NO. 630 OF 2006 _ Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Kuldip Singh for D the Appellant. E Amarendra Sharon, Tushar Bakshi, Sanchit, Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 These Appeals assail the Judgment dated 20.9.2005 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 9621 of2004. The factual matrix is that pursuant to an Auction Notice dated 1.5.2004 F issued by the Managing Director, Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd., several properties, of which we are only concerned with two, were to be put to a public auction. The salient terms as contained in the auction Notice required the interested persons to deposit an amount of G \2,00,000/-as Earnest Money; the successful bidder would have to deposit twenty five per cent of the auction amount at the conclusion of the bidding, and the remaining amount within thirty days of the approval of the bid by the Government. It
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.