TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year 1998, has preferred the present appeals. 2. The facts leading to the present appeals and the chronological dates and events are as under: 2.1 That a proposal was published by the office of Commissioner, Endowments Department to auction the land in question belonging to Sri Markendaya and Omkareswara Swamy Devasthanam, Eluru, which was published in the newspaper on 10.03.1997. Notification to sell the subject land was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22.05.1997. Nobody raised any objection against the said proposal. That the probable expected price of the land was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre and the total extent of land was about 1.81 acre. That thereafter the Commissioner of Endowments Department granted permission to sell the land in question on 13.11.1997. The Executive Officer of the Temple Trust issued tender/public notice to sell the land in question by way of an open auction in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments on 22.05.1998. As per the notice, the date and time of the open auction was 24.06.1998 at 11.00 AM and the interested participants had to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as EMD. Forty-five persons participated including the Appellant here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Eluru on 01.01.1999. On 01.01.1999, the Executive Officer of the Temple/Devasthanam filed an affidavit before the Income Tax Office for Clearance Certificate so that the sale deed could be registered. The Clearance Certificate was granted to the Executive Officer on 12.01.1999. Thus, the first round of litigation ended there. 2.5 However, the second round of litigation begun at the instance of one Shri L. Kantha Rao, the original writ Petitioner before the High Court, and one of the Respondents in these appeals, who as such and as observed hereinabove did not even participate in the public auction proceedings. The said Shri L. Kantha Rao filed a Writ Petition No. 41 of 1999 before the High Court to direct the Executive Officer/the Temple Committee not to execute the sale deed in respect of the auctioned land. Vide interim order dated 05.01.1999, the High Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings subject to the condition that he furnishes a bank guarantee of a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs within two weeks from the date of the said interim order. That during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and in li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order dated 26.11.1999. By a detailed judgment and order dated 02.02.2018, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition No. 25407 of 1999 (which shall be dealt with hereinbelow). The said Shri L. Kantha Rao died on 01.03.2018. That the Respondent No. 1 herein - the Temple through its Executive Officer filed Writ Appeal No. 790 of 2018 before the Division Bench challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 25407 of 1999 on 16.03.2018. The wife of Shri L. Kantha Rao also filed Writ Appeal No. 1069 of 2018 challenging the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25407 of 1999. 2.7 By the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeals and has set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 25407 of 1999 and has directed the authorities concerned to conduct the re-auction of the entire land by fixing the upset price higher than what had been fixed earlier by observing that since more than twenty years had elapsed from the date of issuance of GO Rt. No. 1808 dated 26.11.1999 and price of the land in question ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd did not submit any offer, thereafter, he had no locus to challenge the public auction and/or the sale in favour of the Appellant, who was found to be the highest bidder. 4.3. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court ought to have appreciated that merely because somebody, subsequently to the completion of the public auction and the sale deed has been executed in the favour of the highest bidder states that he is ready and willing to pay a higher amount than the highest bid amount, would frustrate the object and purpose of holding the public auction, if at such a person's instance, the auction/sale is interfered with in any manner. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court ought to have appreciated that at the relevant time, nobody restrained the said Shri L. Kantha Rao from participating in the public auction and submit his offer. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Raval, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant that as such the Division Bench of the High Court has not at all observed and/or held that the auction was illegal and/or there was any illegality in holding the public auction. It is submitted that the Division....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of this Court in the case of Valji Khimji and Co. v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limited and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 299 (paras 11, 12, 25 and 28). 4.7. It is further submitted by Shri Raval that as such the wife of the deceased Shri L. Kantha Rao could not have preferred an appeal as an heir of Shri L. Kantha Rao, a Petitioner, who had filed the petition as a Public Interest Litigation. It is submitted that as such the litigation initiated on behalf of Shri M.M. Gupta the second highest bidder by Shri L. Kantha Rao, was in fact a private interest litigation only in the guise of a Public Interest Litigation to thwart the auction sale. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly reached to the conclusion that the Respondents - writ Petitioners had no locus standi to raise the objection as well as to file the writ petitions before the High Court as admittedly they did not participate in the auction. 4.8. It is further submitted that the Temple Trust never objected at any stage of auction or after the auction until the order/judgment dated 02.02.2018 was rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the Executive officer of the Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is important to ensure that the trustees act strictly in accordance with the interest of the Deity. It is submitted that in the present case, the consideration paid was inadequate as on the date of auction. That initially the Appellant offered Rs. 13,01,000/- per acre, which was treated as the highest bid and the same was confirmed. That one Shri Jagat Kumar through representation dated 24.07.1998 stated that he was willing to offer Rs. 22,00,000/- per acre, i.e., Rs. 7 lakhs more than the price on which the bid was confirmed in favour of the Appellant. Also one Shri L. Kantha Rao submitted a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs on 05.01.1999 pursuant to the directions passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 1999 on his submission that he was ready and willing to purchase the property in question at Rs. 30 lakhs. It is submitted that thereafter the State Government vide its order dated 26.11.1999 fixed the reserved at Rs. 32 lakhs and allowed the parties to participate in the auction. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts evidently reveal that within a period of one year, the price of the property significantly increased by more than 125%. That the value of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that it is the duty of the Court to see that the price fetched is adequate. 6.1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Chairman and Managing director, SIPCOT, Madras and Ors. v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 595; Union Bank of India v. Official Liquidator H.C. of Calcutta and Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 274 and Navalkha and Sons v. Sri Ramanya Das and Ors., (1969) 3 SCC 537 in support of his submission that in the matter of sale of public property/auction the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property. 6.2. Making the above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. 7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has ordered re-auction of the land in question by fixing the upset price more than what has been fixed earlier by observing that since more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of the issuance of G.O. dated 26.11.1999, it is in the interest of the Temple that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar nor Shri L. Kantha Rao had participated in the auction proceedings and made any offer. Therefore, as such both of them ought not have been permitted to raise any objection subsequently on the valuation when they had not participated in the public auction and made any offer. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have considered whether these subsequent objectors had acted in a bona fide manner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even Shri Jagat Kumar subsequently did not prosecute the matter further and subsequently it was only Shri L. Kantha Rao, who filed the revision before the Government by way of a "Public Interest Litigation". It is also to be noted that neither the Government nor even the Division Bench of the High Court have given any finding that the auction, which was conducted/held on 24.06.1998 was in any way irregular and/or illegal. Even the Division Bench of the High Court has as such not set aside the auction/sale in favour of the Appellant, however, it has ordered re-auction by observing that as Shri L. Kantha Rao deposited a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 1999 and as even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold. 49. It is true that in the ultimate analysis, the jurisdiction Under Article 226 in general, and certiorari in particular is discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the Petitioner to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other well-established self-devised Rules of practice, such as the availability of an alternative reme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s set aside on the basis of the such frivolous and irresponsible representations made by such persons then the sanctity of a public auction would be frustrated and the rights of a genuine bidder would be adversely affected. 8.3. Further, the Division Bench of the High Court ought to have appreciated that the objector - Shri L. Kantha Rao, who did not participate in the auction proceedings and submit any bid can be said to be a fence sitter having no stakes on his shoulder and had simply come forward just to nullify the registered sale deed executed in favour of the Appellant by adopting an indirect method of making a public offer by way of filing a "Public Interest Litigation" before the High Court. The so-called lucrative offer initially made by Shri Jagat Kumar and the subsequent offer made by Shri L. Kantha Rao appears to be made only to frustrate the auction proceedings with a mala fide intent. As observed hereinabove, if there was any error in the decision-making process adopted by the authority, the remedy available was to question the sale deed in an appropriate proceeding available under the law and not by filing a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipated in the tender-cum-auction and more so, he is not an effected party. Only after knowing the tender and auction amount, the 4th Respondent appears to have either got tempted by the sale of the property or he has been planted by the persons having vested interest. This kind of conduct cannot be encouraged. It is an undisputed fact that Petitioner, 45 persons filed tenders and participated in the auction, nothing prevented the 4th Respondent from filing tender and participating in the auction. 9. As stated supra, the Respondents have not made out a case of fraud in conducting the sale and also they have not raised any objection at the time of conducting sale proceedings. The Respondents conveniently causing interference, at a later stage cannot be accepted and they are estopped from raising objections after conducting the sale proceedings.... 12. Respondent No. 4 has not approached this Court with clean hands. He has no locus standi. He did not participate in the tender-cum-auction and when 45 persons participated in tender-cum-auction, nothing prevented the 4th Respondent to participate in tender-cum-auction proceedings. Mere depositing the money saying that the amount wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction. 8.9. By the impugned judgment and order by ordering re-auction, the Division Bench of the High Court has permitted both, the Appellant as well as the original writ Petitioner to participate in the re-auction. It is to be noted that as such the original writ Petitioner never participated in the public auction, which was conducted/held on 24.06.1998. Therefore, by such a liberty being granted, the High Court has given one another opportunity to the original writ Petitioner, who has died, and/or to his heirs to participate in the re-auction, which liberty could not have been reserved. As a result, the writ petition filed by the deceased Petitioner Shri L. Kantha Rao has ceased to be a "Public Interest Litigation" but it is a litigation with a private mala fide interest as the original writ Petitioner had no locus to file such a case, not being a participant in the auction and being unable to point out any irregularity or illegality in the auction. 8.10. Even the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order in an appeal preferred by the Temple Trust for the simple reason that it was the Executive Officer of the Temple Trust, who ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso did not exist in the instant case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed an order for re-auction of the property after a period of 23 years from the date of auction/sale to the detriment of the rights of the Appellant who was the successful bidder in the auction sale. In this regard, we wish to rely on some of the observations made by this Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402, cautioning the High Courts to be more discerning/vigilant and/or cautious while entertaining writ petitions apparently filed in public interest. In the said decision, it is observed and held that: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the Petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the pe....