Corporate separateness cannot shield auction disqualification where a company and director substantively operate the defaulting enterprise together.

Auction disqualification for provident fund default may extend beyond formal corporate separateness where the record shows that a company and its director substantively managed the same enterprise. The notes explain that a director's statutory default may therefore affect the company's eligibility under an auction condition barring provident fund defaulters. They also address judicial review of auction cancellation: a contemporaneously recorded ground concerning public interest, including circumstances indicating bidder collusion, may be considered even if omitted from the cancellation communication, provided procedural fairness is maintained. Common sourcing of earnest money deposits is identified as a relevant circumstance for assessing apparent collusion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was disqualified under Clause XIV of the e-auction notice because provident fund dues of the tea estate manager, who was also its director, remained unpaid on the auction date; (ii) Whether the cancellation could be sustained on the recorded circumstances of collusion between the two bidders, although collusion was not stated in the cancellation communication.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was disqualified under Clause XIV of the e-auction notice because provident fund dues of the tea estate manager, who was also its director, remained unpaid on the auction date.

Analysis: Clause XIV barred a bidder who was a defaulter with any provident fund organisation. The manager was contractually liable for statutory dues and had defaulted in provident fund contributions until 22.03.2023, after the auction held on 14.03.2023. The petitioner's own letter, issued through that director, represented that the company had invested in, managed and maintained accounts for the tea estate, and the company made payments connected with the estate. These facts established that the company was in substance managing the estate through its director; the separate legal personality of the company could not be invoked to avoid the default for purposes of the auction condition.

Conclusion: The petitioner was a defaulter under Clause XIV on the auction date, and cancellation of its bid was valid. The issue is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation could be sustained on the recorded circumstances of collusion between the two bidders, although collusion was not stated in the cancellation communication.

Analysis: The records showed that the earnest money deposits of both bidders originated from the same bank account; this was recorded by the Recovery Officer before cancellation of the bids. The petitioner did not deny that fact. Where public interest is involved, an alternative ground traceable to the contemporaneous record may be considered in judicial review, provided fairness is maintained. The recorded circumstances supported an inference of collusion and could not be disregarded merely because they were omitted from the cancellation communication.

Conclusion: The apparent collusion independently supported rejection of the petitioner's bid. The issue is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner acquired no enforceable entitlement to confirmation of the auction sale or restoration of possession of the tea estate.

Ratio Decidendi: A bidder cannot rely on separate corporate personality to evade an auction disqualification where the record demonstrates that the company and its director operated the subject enterprise in substance as one, and a contemporaneously recorded ground affecting public interest may support the administrative action.

---