M/S Faraim Isarail And Company vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Faraim Isarail And Company, was the highest bidder for a shop (B-3) in an auction held on 29.6.2018, offering Rs. 1,17,00,000/-. An allotment order was issued on 18.7.2018, followed by a demand notice dated 14.9.2018 for 50% of the bid amount, Rs. 58.50 lakh plus GST. The petitioner challenged this notice in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34700 of 2018. This Court, by order dated 12.10.2018, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 42,07,000/- plus other charges within fifteen days, clarifying that failure to do so would result in cancellation of the allotment. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10 lakh on 26.10.2018 and Rs. 28 lakh on 29.10.2018. Subsequently, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37409 of 2018 was dismissed on 15.11.2018 for lack of merit, noting the petitioner had not deposited the full amount. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition challenging a notice dated 17.12.2018 advertising the shop for re-auction.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not complied with the order dated 12.10.2018. The demand against the petitioner was for Rs. 58.50 lakh plus GST, and this demand notice was not quashed by the Court. The petitioner concededly did not deposit this amount within the stipulated period. The Court found that the petitioner's submission regarding parity with another co-petitioner was not valid, as the co-petitioner had deposited the entire amount as per the Court's order. The Court reiterated its earlier finding in Writ-C No. 37409 of 2018 that the writ petition lacked merit. Therefore, the present writ petition, based on the same cause of action, was not maintainable. The Court dismissed the writ petition but left it open for the petitioner to move a fresh application for refund of the deposited amount, expressing hope for expeditious refund by the respondent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has complied with the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34700 of 2018, which stipulated the deposit of Rs. 42,07,000/- plus other charges within fifteen days, failing which the allotment would be cancelled. (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of the Court's order and the petitioner's actions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that they have deposited approximately Rs. 42,30,000/- in compliance with the order dated 12.10.2018 and therefore, the respondents should be restrained from re-auctioning the shop. They also sought parity with a co-petitioner in another writ petition. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argue that the demand notice was for Rs. 58.50 lakh plus GST, and the petitioner failed to deposit this amount within the stipulated period, even after the Court's order. Consequently, the allotment stood cancelled as per the Court's earlier judgment. They further submit that the case of the co-petitioner is distinguishable as that petitioner had deposited the entire amount.