Kaur Singh Vs. Hardev Kaur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 3. from the impugned order, i find that the application was dismissed by the executing court only on the ground that the auction-purchaser failed to deposit 1/4th amount on the date when the auction was held and further failed to deposit/pay the remaining 3/4th amount within stipulated period of fifteen days from the date of auction. the executing court shall also determine as to whether decree in favour of the wife stands satisfied or not.v.k. jhanji, j. 1. one hardev kaur filed a suit against her husband for a recovery of maintenance at the rate of rs. 500/- per month. suit was decreed for a sum of rs. 27,803.25 p. in execution for the recovery of the decretal amount, property of her husband, gurjant singh, was sold for rs. 30,000/-. petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder, 1/4th amount of the total sale consideration was deposited by him with the revenue patwari at the time of bid, and the same was deposited by the kanungo on 28.5.1991. subsequently, petitioner paid the remaining 3/4th amount as per directions of the court to the decree holder. after having paid deposited the total sum of rs. 30,000/- he made an application that sale certificate to this effect be issued in his name. gurjant singh whose property was sold, also made an application that after payment of the amount to the decree-holder, the remainder be paid to him. hardev kaur also made an application that she be paid the amount according to the decree. all these three applications were dismissed. the auction-purchaser has impugned the order in the present revision petition.2. the only grievance of the auction-purchaser is that he having paid the entire auction amount; was entitled to the issuance of sale certificate, and for no reason whatsoever his application to this effect was dismissed by the executing court.3. from the impugned order, i find that the application was dismissed by the executing court only on the ground that the auction-purchaser failed to deposit 1/4th amount on the date when the auction was held and further failed to deposit/pay the remaining 3/4th amount within stipulated period of fifteen days from the date of auction. it is not clear from the order as to whether any objections were filed by the judgment debtor in opposite to the prayer of the auction-purchaser for the issuance of sale certificate. if no such objections were filed and the judgment-debtor was not aggrieved with regard to deposit of amount, there was no reason for the executing court to reject the prayer of the auction-purchaser for the issuance of sale certificate. it is also not clear from the impugned order as to whether the wife was paid the entire amount because rs. 10,500/- were deposited by the auction-purchaser in court on 10.6.1991. the order under revision, therefore, cannot be sustained.4. consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside, with a direction to the executing court to decide the application of the auction-purchaser afresh, keeping in view the observations made by this court. the executing court shall also determine as to whether decree in favour of the wife stands satisfied or not.5. parties through their counsel re-directed to appear before the executing court on 15.10.1993.