Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as respondent Corporation. Appellant is before us aggrieved by judgment of learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by him.
2. The undisputed fact in the present case is, for the Fiber Unit, a propriety concern, appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation way back in 1989. Apparently, no repayment came to be made by him. Primary security was the property where the industry was located and as collateral security, the property of his father was offered, as father stood as a surety for the said loan.
3. According to appellant, the sale in question, pertains to the manufacturing unit and the land on which said unit is situated, is bad on account of following reasons; 1) the property is undervalued, 2) the procedure is not followed as only one bidder came and the sale was conducted, 3) before confirmation, no opportunity by notice was offered to the appellant and lastly, the sale proceedings pertaining to property offered as collateral security was set aside for procedural lapses.
4. So far as the first ground of undervaluation, the upset price was fixed at a consolidated figure of Rs.4,45,000/- and according to appellant, property is worth Rs.50 lakhs as on today. If property is worth Rs.50 lakhs, the basis for such expectation by appellant is not disclosed as no material is forthcoming. On the other hand, at paragraph 7 of the writ petition he approached the Chief Manager of 1st respondent Corporation requesting them to accept the price offered by a near relative of appellant for Rs.4,25,000/-. It is also seen that Managing Director directed the Manager, Kollam to examine the same. If offer of his relative was Rs.4,25,000/- we fail to understand on what basis the appellant/writ petitioner contends that the property is valued about Rs.50 lakhs.
5. So far as the second ground of accepting a bid of single bidder, there was no public auction so far as the property is concerned. In this case Section 29 of the Act is followed. When property was offered for sale, only one bidder came forward to purchase the property for Rs.3 lakhs. Though upset price was at Rs.4,45,000/-, no other tenders were received. It is also seen that the property could be sold only at the eleventh time notification and on previous occasion no offers came, therefore it is very evident from the records that several times the property was offered for sale, but only on eleventh occasion 4th respondent came forward to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. In the light of the fact that earlier ten times the Corporation was unsuccessful, we cannot find fault with them for selling the property at eleventh time. If no bidders came forward, Corporation cannot be found fault with, who are dealing with public money. If property was worth Rs.50 lakhs, and the upset price was Rs.4,45,000/-, definitely many interested parties would have come forward to purchase the property, therefore, the second ground that there was no justification to accept the bid of one bidder is also rejected.
6. The third ground is, before confirmation of sale, a notice has to be given. According to Corporation, such notice was sent to the appellant and said ground is raised for the first time in the appeal. Before confirmation of sale, according to Corporation, first notice returned endorsing 'addressee left without information'. In the second notice the endorsement was 'addressee left station and present address not known'. The third one was addressed to the father of the appellant and same was returned as addressee expired. Facts ascertainable in this case are borrower is none other than the son of surety who offered his property as collateral security which includes a residential house in the adjacent area, therefore, when notice was sent to the appellant, we fail to understand how the next door man could keep quite as both the properties are comprising of single unit. Even otherwise, Corporation has made attempts to inform the surety who is none other than the father of appellant. When both the industrial unit and residential properties are comprised in one property, we presume that appellant was aware of the notice of confirmation of sale.
7. Then coming to the last argument so far as the sale of property offered as collateral security, the authorities themselves had set aside the sale when procedural lapses were noticed and it was a revenue recovery proceedings. Each notification has to be considered separately and laches pertaining to one sale cannot be the situation for the other sale as well. Therefore, this argument also is of no assistance to the appellant.
8. Then coming to the acceptance of offer made by 4th respondent for confirmation of sale though upset price was fixed at Rs.4,45,000/-, single bidder offered only Rs.3 lakhs and after negotiation the amount arrived was Rs.3,90,000/- as the property was brought for sale eleventh time and only on eleventh time they were successful to get one offer, so the Corporation had accepted the same.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that even according to their information 4th respondent is also a relative of the appellant, but however, no material is forthcoming for the same. Even otherwise, none of the grounds raised by appellant is sustainable. We are of the opinion, no reason is made out for interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/18/06