' Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No,2 invited tenders to sell in open auction some used up furniture and vehicle 1984 which auction was held on 28-8-1998. The conditions for participation in auction were also published in the newspaper which stands reflected in the clipping annexed with this petition. The petitioner participated in the auction to purchase the vehicle on the aforesaid day. He being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and he paid Rs,1,00,000 at the spot instead of 50% of the price, as stipulated in the clipping Annexure B. After payment of auction price, he was issued a delivery letter on the same day and so also registration book. As per terms of auction, he went to respondent No,3 for the delivery of the vehicle whereupon he was not delivered the same.
He was informed that one Aslam had offered a sum of Rs,1,50,000, as such the vehicle v
2. Comments of the respondents were called which have been substituted..
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel 'for the petitioner has reiterated his contentions incorporated in the petition as discussed above.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has asserted that as per terms and' conditions of the auction, final authority vested with the respondents to accept the bid or not. He contends that in exercise of the said powers vested in the respondents, auction has not been approved and as such the petitioner has been refused the delivery of the said vehicle.
However, when questioned if any order of cancellation of the said bid has been passed, he has not been able to give any reply of the same.
6. It is evident from the facts stated above that as a result of open auction, the petitioner being the highest bidder, was allowed to purchase the articles referred in the clipping of the newspaper. He deposited a sum of Rs,1,00,000 on the same day and was consequently issued a delivery letter as well as registration book of the vehicle concerned. He has simply been denied the delivery on the ground that one Aslam appeared before respondent No,3 and offered to purchase the same at a price of Rs,50,000 more than the one offered by the petitioner. Had respondent No,3 not accepted the entire amount of auction price, not issued delivery note and not issued the registration book of the vehicle concerned, there could be some logic in refusing the delivery of the vehicle concerned.
It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that auction which was conducted on 28-8- 1998 still holds the field as the same has not been cancelled till today. This being the factual position, respondent No,3 could not refuse the delivery of the vehicle concerned to the petitioner.
7. In the light of facts stated above, the petition is accepted and respondent No,3 is directed to hand over the vehicle to the petitioner.