9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, is the basis for the High Court for grant of relief in favour of the respondent is wholly untenable in law and therefore, the same cannot be accepted by this Court. The High Court should have noticed the above relevant aspects of the case in passing the impugned order which would certainly affect the public interest. In the light of the legal principle laid down by this Court with regard to Public Trust Doctrine in Mahesh Chandra’s case (1992 (2) TMI 367 - SUPREME COURT) we are inclined to observe that the liquidator did not act fairly and reasonably in the best interest of the public of the State whose interest he is required to uphold. As per the material evidence put on record, the liquidator and the concerned authority did not take any step to improve the condition of the land and sell it at reasonable and standard price prevalent at the time of sale of the property in question. Hence, we hold that the tender process initiated by the appellants is not legal and is liable to be set aside. We direct the concerned authority to issue fresh notice of tender for selling the land. The notice shall be made available in government websites and other local and national newspape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007. 7. It is pertinent to note that the tender of the sale of the concerned land was floated without the prior approval of the government as required by instructions issued in respect of alienation of tea garden land from time to time, particularly, letter no. RSS 573/94/25 dated 26.3.2001 of the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement) Department. The other codal formalities for tender process were not followed either. 8. On 26.2.2007, two tender bids were received. The respondent herein made a bid for ₹ 1.11 crore. Another party, M/s Luxmi Township made a bid for ₹ 1.05 crore. However, since the respondent had submitted his tender document by hand at 3:45 p.m., the same was objected by the other contender. The respondent was still considered the only valid bidder. 9. The Liquidator subsequently, vide Order dated 21.4.2007, cancelled the tender process by observing that the price quoted by the parties for the 9000 bighas of land is not at all justifiable. Further, M/s Luxmi Township Pvt. Ltd. had intimated that the entire stamp duty for the transfer of land, in case of a valid sale, has to be borne by the Ex- Officio Liquidator of CTFICS Ltd. The bid value i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5% of the total bid initially within a week of issuance thereof, as per the terms laid in Clause 3 of the Deed of Agreement. The remaining 75% of the total consideration amount was required to be paid by the respondent at the time of execution of the sale deed, subject however, to the withdrawal of W.P. (C) No. 1928/2007 by the respondent. The Writ Petition was closed subsequently since it was not pursued. 16. The sub-Registrar (Registration), Silchar was approached by the liquidator on 9.12.2009 for registration of the sale deed. The sub- Registrar asked the liquidator to produce permission/approval from the Revenue Department for registration of the sale deed. The liquidator on 10.12.2009, wrote to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies seeking instruction on the same. The Liquidator however, could not produce the government permission for execution of the sale deed in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the sale deed could not be executed in favour of the respondent. Therefore, vide Communication dated 20.1.2010 from the Secretary, Co- operation Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, he was directed to refrain from registering the sale deed in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected by the transfer of ownership. 22. The Chief Minister of the State observed that there are various discrepancies in the proposal forwarded to him and therefore, directed the Revenue Department to examine the matter and to consult the Legal Remembrancer for further course of action in case discrepancies are found. The Legal Remambrancer observed that since loss of huge amount of public money to the tune of several crores is involved in the matter, the government might prefer an appeal before the Division Bench in wider public interest along with petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, an appeal was filed by the appellants against the Order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 4147/2010. The High Court however, vide Order dated 2.2.2012, rejected the application for condonation of delay being M.C. No. 5/ 2011 in WA Sl. No. 168339/2011. 23. The High Court opined that the time lag between 2.2.2011 and 22.11.2011 has not at all been convincingly explained by the appellants. Though the State is in shackle by unavoidable official formalities to streamline its decision, however, the explanation offered by the appellants towards justification of the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. Therefore, regarding the matter of delay in this case, we are inclined to observe that the malfunctioning of the State Government regarding the unpardonable lackadaisical attitude towards pursuing matter in the court of law cannot be the reason for loss of public property, which involves public money and causes loss to the public exchequer. Therefore, we feel that it is a fit case to exercise our discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal in the interest of public at large as the High Court has failed to do so. We therefore, condone the delay in filing the Review Petition by the appellants before the High Court in the larger interest of public. However, this case should not set a precedent to justify inordinate delays on the part of the State Government to file appeals or any other lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,24,72,124/-. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the concerned authority to ensure all steps which should have been undertaken to sell the land at a minimum cost of ₹ 4,24,72,124/- or above instead of its attempt to sell the same at a lower price merely on the pretext that no one would come up to purchase the land at the valuer s price or that since the land is an encroached land, the lower price is justified cannot be accepted. The strong reliance placed by the learned senior counsel, Mr. Mehta on the report of the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, is the basis for the High Court for grant of relief in favour of the respondent is wholly untenable in law and therefore, the same cannot be accepted by this Court. The High Court should have noticed the above relevant aspects of the case in passing the impugned order which would certainly affect the public interest. 31. With regard to the procedure to be followed while selling the property, this Court, in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regl. Manager, U.P.F.C.[ (1993) 2 SCC 279], has held :- 15. .. Every wide power, the exercise of which has far reaching repercussion, has inherent limitation on it. It shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Trust Act, Third Edition, 1987 at page 275 in Section 37 it is stated that, Where the trustee is empowered to sell any trust property...by public auction or private contract and either at one time or at several times... the duty of trustee is to obtain the best price. He should, therefore, use reasonable diligence in inviting competition to that end. Where a contract of sale has been entered into bona fide by a trustee the court will not allow it to be rescinded or invalidated because another purchaser conies forward with a higher price. It would, however, be improper for the trustee to contract in circumstances of haste and improvidence. Where in a trust for sale and payment of creditors the trustee sold at a gross under valuation showing a preference to one of the creditors, he was held guilty, of breach of trust. If the purchaser is privy of the fraud the property itself can be recovered from him. 17. The sale may be either by public auction or private contract. In either case the trustee has to keep in mind that he must obtain the most advantageous price. Kerr on Receivers 17th Edition, at page 208 stated that a receiver, however, is not expected any more than a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1980) 4 SCC 1] and other catena of cases which were mentioned in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 29 are aptly applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand. 32. Therefore, in the light of the legal principle laid down by this Court with regard to Public Trust Doctrine in Mahesh Chandra s case (supra) and the cases mentioned supra, we are inclined to observe that the liquidator did not act fairly and reasonably in the best interest of the public of the State whose interest he is required to uphold. As per the material evidence put on record, the liquidator and the concerned authority did not take any step to improve the condition of the land and sell it at reasonable and standard price prevalent at the time of sale of the property in question. 33. Hence, we hold that the tender process initiated by the appellants is not legal and is liable to be set aside. We direct the concerned authority to issue fresh notice of tender for selling the land. The notice shall be made available in government websites and other local and national newspapers so as to encourage and invite more bidders. In the meanwhile, the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
