Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Show cause notice -- A show cause notice is not necessarily an inviolable principle; It is unnecessary when the party knows that he has not obtained a vested right in the subject matter. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If there had been an outright sale of the property and the person, who conducts the auction was himself competent to conclude the contract and a contract had been concluded/confirmed, a decision to annul the contract could not be made without giving a notice to the person to explain the same and to take a decision of the basis on such objections. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- Where an auction is subject to a confirmation by another authority, a person that bids at the auction ought to know that by the mere fact that he has made the highest bid does not conclude the contract and if a decision is taken by yet another officer not to confirm the sale, such a decision need not be put to the party before a decision is taken -- It is not the same thing as to state that a sanctioning authority may take an arbitrary decision -- Validity of such a decision will still be a subject to judicial review. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If, the auction had been set aside attributing any practice of fraud or collusion against any of the petitioners, they would be justified in stating that decision without putting them on notice of such decision was illegal -- Auction is being set aside on existence of some supervening events that had a bearing on the unjustness of the result of the auction in which the petitioners had themselves no part -- Loss of property is itself not the prejudice -- Prejudice shall be to show how the notice would have made a difference. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Show cause notice -- Detailed procedure to show cause notice before a resumption was made, it is in the context of how a person, who obtains an allotment and who comes upon the property, is made to vacate the property and such a decision, which will have an immediate effect on a right to hold on to possession, could not be made without a transparent process that involves the affected party to show cause as to why the extreme action shall not be taken. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Higher bid in a week -- If there was an offer within a week by yet another person for a price above what was offered in this case for the property, it only showed that it would have been prudent to keep back the property from sale without offering it for public when the market forces were pulling the prices down. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of – Auction purchasers have not invested any big sums -- Their deposits were in terms of a few lakhs and they have not had the benefit of possession all the years -- If the sales were allowed to stand, the private individuals would come to enormous benefit that would benefit only them -- If, on the other hand, the sales were to be set aside, it would make possible for realisation of over Rs.50 crores for the property by Administration – Setting aside of auction upheld, auction purchaser would be entitled to refund of their moneys with interest @24% per annum. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Sales had not been approved and sale deeds had not been executed in the manner contemplated in the Rules -- Consideration for the property had not been paid in full – Auction purchaser had not taken possession and the property had not been put to use by the petitioners -- It is not a case where the auction purchasers had to close down business by the action of the Administration – Auction purchaser could no more than complain of loss of hypothetical profits, if the property had been sold, if the property had been delivered possession, if the property had been put to use for the business, if profits had accrued and a host of imponderables – Auction sale shall be cancelled. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Rule 6 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 – Public auction – Sale of property -- If it was merely a transaction between private individuals, a mere increase in price may not be a ground to refuse a specific enforcement -- Governing principles between a private individual and a State authority cannot be the same; a fortiorari, the remedy under the private law and public law cannot also be the same -- In State actions, public interest is the most predominant principle. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment