Johnsi Rani Lakshmi Bai N vs. The Authorised Officer

Held

The Court held that no relief could be granted to the writ petitioner. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the fourth e-auction, which was the occasion when a bid was received and confirmed. The Court noted that the petitioner also did not participate in the first auction. Consequently, the Court found no equity in favour of the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a party who fails to participate in a successful auction, especially after multiple failed attempts by the auctioneer, cannot claim a right to purchase the property at the reserve price subsequently. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, N.Johnsi Rani Lakshmi Bai, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Authorized Officer of State Bank of India to accept the reserve price of Rs. 13,53,000/- plus GST for movable properties (Pet Machineries) belonging to a defaulting borrower. These properties were listed in an e-auction sale notice dated February 6, 2024. The petitioner had initially remitted an EMD with the intention to participate in the e-auction held on February 29, 2024, but failed to make a bid, leading to the cancellation of the auction due to a lack of bidders. Subsequent auctions also failed to attract bidders. On the fourth occasion, a bid of Rs. 13,78,000/- was confirmed in favour of another bidder, Palanisamy Dhandapani, and the sale was completed. The petitioner made a representation on July 9, 2024, seeking to purchase the machinery at the reserve price.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the reserve price of Rs. 13,53,000/- plus GST for the movable properties, despite not participating in the successful auction. (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that she intended to participate and sought to purchase the machinery at the reserve price, implying a right to do so. The representation dated July 9, 2024, was made to facilitate this. Respondent's argument: The respondent argued that the petitioner did not participate in the successful auction where the bid was confirmed and the sale was completed. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner as there was no equity in her favour.