(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) Heard learned advocate Mr. Prachchhak for the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court making following main prayers :
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned action of respondent Corporation in not finalizing the bid of petitioner for Shiv Chemicals, situate at GIDC, Porbandar, despite of the highest offer made by the petitioner, as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unfair, as also violative of principles of natural justice and settled legal principles and also violative of Art.14 and 19 of Constitution of India;
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent Corporation from issuing any fresh public advertisement, inviting tender cum offer for industrial unit i.e. Shiv Chemicals, situate at plot No.265/2, GIDC, Porbandar, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(BB) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the subsequent public advertisement dtd.27.9.2011 published in Sandesh Daily Newspapers annexed at Annexure-'A-1" to this petition in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the policy, the petitioner's offer ought to have been forwarded by the Auctioning Authority to the Board of Directors. Against this, the respondents' case is that the concerned Authority found that the valuation made by their own Valuer was not proper and therefore, the correct valuation was got done through a Government owned Company, i.e., GITCO, which is far more higher than what the valuation was made by the valuer of the respondent Corporation.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's offer was not forwarded to the Board of Directors. However, it was forwarded to the Recovery Committee and the Recovery Committee was of the opinion that the valuation is to be redone. It was found that the property in question was worth about Rs.74 lakhs as against Rs.46.71 lakhs as assessed by their Valuer. The offer made by the petitioner was for Rs.33.01 lakhs and therefore, the respondent Authorities were of the opinion that the offer was of lesser than 50% and therefore, the offer was not required to be forwarded to the Board of Directors.
4. The respondent Authorities then proceeded with the auction of the property again, at which stage, the petitioner approached this Court with this petition. Initially, this Court granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(BB).
5. Having heard the learned advocates and having examined the papers, we find that the decision of having the property revalued was taken by the Recovery Committee, after the auction when the bid of the petitioner was sent to the Recovery Committee for its consideration. The view of the Recovery Committee that the valuation is not properly done by their Valuer appears to be justified as the valuation by GITCO is much more than what the assessment was made by their Valuer. In such eventuality, if the Recovery Committee has decided not to forward the offer of the petitioner to the Board of Directors, no fault can be found and further by undertaking this exercise, Recovery Committee has been able to have proper value of the property at the hands of an independent Company like GITCO and, thereby, the Corporation's interest is not put to any jeopardies. Though, prima facie, the action, being post-auction action, raises an element of suspicion, we are of the view that if, ultimately, the value is found to be less, large public interest is protected. The petitioner is not going to put to any jeopardies, if the property is put for an auction again where he can very well participate.
6. Under the circumstances, we do not find proper to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction for granting the relief sought by the petitioner. At this stage, it would be appropriate to record that even if the reliefs which are sought are granted, the petitioner is not going to be benefited in any manner as no relief seeking any mandate on the respondents is sought. Merely quashing the action or inaction on the part of the respondent Authorities is not going to help the petitioner in any manner.
7. In these set of circumstances, the petition is found to be devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Notice stands discharged. No costs.
[A.L.
Dave, J.] [Mohinder Pal, J.] #MH Dave Top