Petitioner sought quashing of auction notice for a pond lease and direction to allot the lease based on a prior auction where she was the highest bidder. The court dismissed the petition, noting rights from the first auction were dismissed as not pressed and no illegality existed in the fresh auction after the previous lease expired.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22049 of 2018 Petitioner :- Heerakali Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu,Haseen Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of auction notice dated 25.6.2018 published in daily newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 2.6.2018 for settlement of lease of a pond in Village Batetu, Tehsil Powanya, district Shahjahanpur and for restraining the respondents not to give effect to the auction dated 25.6.2018. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allot the pond in favour of the petitioner as per auction dated 22.1.2018 wherein the petitioner was the highest bidder.
It appears from the facts brought on record that in an action held on 22.1.2018 for granting lease hold rights in respect of a pond, the petitioner also submitted her bid. According to the petitioner, her bid was the highest. The petitioner claims that she deposited the entire bid amount being Rs.4000/- and Rs.400/- towards other expenses. However, the bid of the petitioner was not accepted. Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.6156 of 2018 before this Court challenging the action of the respondents in refusing to accord approval to the highest bid of the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 16.2.2018 as not pressed, without any liberty to file a fresh writ petition. The respondents thereafter issued the impugned auction notice inviting fresh bids for settlement of lease hold rights in respect of the same pond.
It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that her bid dated 22.1.2018 was not accepted on the ground that an earlier lease executed in respect of the same pond in favour of some other person was in subsistence till 19.5.2018 and consequently, the same pond could not have been given on lease to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that rights, if any, flowing in favour of the petitioner on account of her being the highest bidder was subject matter of consideration before this Court in Writ-C No.6156 of 2018, but which was dismissed, as the petitioner did not press the same and that too, without any liberty to file fresh writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of auction dated 22.1.2018 in the instant writ petition. Apart from it, no other right is being claimed. Consequently, this court does not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in proceeding to issue auction
notice for settlement of lease hold rights in respect of the pond in question after the earlier lease had come to an end.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 25.6.2018 SL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has the right to challenge the auction of the pond lease after her earlier bid was not accepted due to an existing lease.
Whether there is any illegality in issuing a fresh auction notice for settlement of lease hold rights after the expiration of the earlier lease.
Heerakali
State Of U P
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
