LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus M/S. YOGINDER SHARMA ONKAR RAI & CO. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"" STATE OF PUNJAB A v. M/S. YOGINDER SHARMA ONKAR RAI & CO. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 [S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Administrative Law-Auction of liquor vends-High Court reversing order of Financial Commissioner reject- ing the allegedly unsuccessful bidder's representation-Held, Financial Commissioner's conclusion were reasonable and he was not biased; the High C Court was in e1ror and its judgment was based on conjectures impennissib/e where the fact-finding auth01ity's conclusion is neither perverse nor w1- reaso11ab/~Administrative Law-Constitution of India, Article 14. Practice and Procedur~Writ petition challenging public auction of liquor vends-Held, petitioner must prove bonafides by depositing a substan- D tial portion of what he says he will bid; only if such deposit is made should the auction be set side and re-auction ordered-Constitution of India, A1ticle 226. On March 11, 1996 a public auction of liquor vends of Group Nos. E 108 to 111 in Khanna Circle, District Ludhiana, Punjab for the year 1996-?7 took place. The respondent challenged the auction in a_ writ petition which was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to treat the writ petition as a representation and give the respondent an opportunity of being heard before passing ap- propriate orders. F The Financial Commissioner while rejecting the representation of the respondent concluded that the respondent had not given a bid of Rs. 4.21 crores for Group No. 108 or a bid of Rs. 3.50 crores for Group No. 111 as alleged by him; that it was next to impossible that 34 bank drafts could have G been prepared on the day of the auction in banks at Khanna and Mandi Gobind Garb situated 40-50 kms. away from the site of the auction; that bid of the respondent for Group No. 108 being Rs. 50 lakhs more than the ' successful bid and that for Group No. 111 being Rs. 45 lakhs more than the successful bid, it was hard to believe that the Collector who was present at the site did not intervene; that the independent observers had in their H 375 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A reports made no mention of the alleged higher bids and had stated that the auctions were fair and without favouritism; that there. was no evidence that the auction had been stage-managed. While the writ petition by another petitioner challenging the Finan- cial Commissioner's order was dismissed by one Division bench stating B that there was no infirmity the~n, the respondent's writ petition challeng- ing the same order was allowed by another Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench here held that the respondent being the highest bidder was wrongly shown to have not participated in the bid. It held that the Financial Commissioner's conclusions were based on conjectures and C it passed strictures on his conduct. All the four groups were directed to be re-auctioned. In case the writ petitioner did not participate in the re-auc- tion and there was no other bidder making the same offer as that of the successful bidders, the writ petitions would be deemed to be dismissed. D The State of Punjab and the successful bidders appeal to this Court. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1 .. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in reaching the conclusion that the auction was not properly and fairly held. The Financial Commissioner's conciusion in his report were reasonable. E The remarks made by the Division Bench about him are not justified. There was nothing in his order to indicate that he was in any way biased. [389-H; 390-A] 1.2. The judgment of the Division Bench was based upon conjectures and surmises and inferences more tenuous than those it found the Finan- F cial. Commissioner guilty of. Such conjectures and surmises were imper- missible in a judgment upon a writ petition under· Article 226 where the fact-finding authority had arrived at a conclusion which was not perverse or so unreasonable that, upon the record, it could not have been reached. [388-H; 389-A] G 2.t. The respondent's story did not ring true. or the twelve to thirteen hundred persons present in the pandal, not one independent observer had stated on affidavit that the respondent had made bids far larger than the successful bids but they had been ignored. [389-F] 2.2. The order of the High Court was not a workable or well tho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.