Petitioner sought mandamus directing respondents to accept premium for a shop allotment via installments. Court held that open auction allotment was subject to 50% deposit condition. Allowing installments would violate rules and unfair to other bidders. Petition dismissed.
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. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33713 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Shree Balaji Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Jatan Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for relief in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to accept the premium of money from the petitioner by way of installment.
From the perusal of the allotment order of the shop in question, it is absolutely clear that allotment was subject to deposit of 50% amount of premium within the prescribed period of time.
In our considered opinion, the allotment was subject to certain conditions with which the petitioner had accepted and participated in the bid. Once the petitioner participated in the bid organized in an open auction proceedings, it shall be deemed that he had voluntarily chosen to offer a bid for a shop and to accept it with such conditions as may be contained in the allotment order. Any interference and permission to deposit premium in instalments would not only be contrary to the rules but would amount to giving undue advantage to those who had no money to offer and yet intruded to defeat genuine bidders, giving serious jolt to the object behind open auction proceedings and this we would certainly not permit. Therefore, in such situation, we cannot modify the terms and conditions of the allotment order.
This Court declines to interfere in the writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, consigned to records.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Gaurav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should direct the respondents to accept the premium of money from the petitioner by way of installment.
Whether the allotment of a shop subject to deposit of 50% amount can be modified to allow installment payments.
M/S Shree Balaji Traders
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
