Dismissed

Ram Balak v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2020WRIC/15856/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus for a fisheries lease. The court held that the petitioner, despite being the highest bidder, failed to deposit the balance amount as per auction conditions. Since the petitioner was a defaulter and fresh auctions were already underway, no ground for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner was a defaulter who failed to deposit the balance bid amount.

Ram Balak Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15856 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Balak Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoria, the 3rd respondent to grant a fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner as he was the highest bidder in an auction held on 17.04.2018.

¶7

On the petition being filed, learned Standing Counsel had been directed to obtain instructions. The instructions that have been received are to the effect that 1/4th of the bid amount was deposited by the petitioner immediately on the conclusion of auction proceedings. The balance amount which was required to be deposited within a period of 15 days was never deposited by the petitioner despite a letter having been sent to him for making such deposit.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal is that no letter was received by him. He is also tried to contend that only after his bid had been accepted, then the question of depositing the balance amount would arise.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings was fully aware of the conditions of the auction proceedings. It was clearly stipulated that after depositing 1/4th of the bid amount, the highest bidder would deposit the balance amount within a period of 15 days, thereafter. This was not done by the petitioner and, therefore, the lease has not been granted to the petitioner.

¶10

It has also been stated that it is admitted on record that proceedings for a fresh auction are already in process.

¶11

In view of the foregoing, I do not find any ground to interfere or to grant the mandamus prayed for by the petitioner because the petitioner is a defaulter.

¶12

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.10.2020 Mayank

Ram Balak v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Balak v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shyam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Devendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wajeeh Mohammad Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Sagadi and Another

Vishuddhanand Pandey Vs State of U P and Another