Anupam Dasgupta This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.02.2010 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, he State Commission by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. 2. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sitapur (in short, he District Forum had directed the petitioners to refund to the respondent/complainant the sum of Rs.2 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum that the petitioners had forfeited on the ground that the respondent/complainant had failed to deposit the balance auction price out of Rs. 20.2 lakh in respect of the two halls under the petitionersPanchwati Yojana, Sitapur, purchased by it. 3. The complaint was filed before the District Forum by the complainant School through its Manager, Dr. (Smt.) Karuna Mishra with the averment that she had authorised two of the complainant officials, viz., Shri Madhusudan Dixit and Shri Girish Mishra to participate in the auction proceedings and make bids on her behalf in respect of one hall each of the two halls which had been put up for auction by the petitioners on 24.01.2000. However, she had not authorised these officials to enter into further negotiations in respect of the price already bid and accepted, namely, Rs.10.05 lakh for one hall and Rs.10.06 lakh in respect of the other. These amounts were unauthorisedly enhanced to Rs.10.10 lakh each by letters alleged to have been written by the aforesaid Dixit and Mishra in collusive manipulations behind her back. She was not informed by petitioner Parishad about the acceptance of the highest bids of Rs.10.05 lakh and Rs.10.06 lakh nor was there any other communication from the petitioner to her for a long period after the auction. As a result, she informed the petitioners that she was not interested in buying the two halls and requested release of the earnest money of Rs.2 lakh deposited by her through her aforesaid representatives. However, the petitioners cancelled the auction proceedings by its letter dated 08.12.2000 on the ground that the complainant had failed to pay the balance price of the accepted bid of Rs.10.10 lakh for each hall and forfeited the deposit of Rs.2 lakh. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners in not taking any decision on the highest bids offered by her representatives for the two halls and instead cancelling the auction, the said Manager filed the complaint and prayed for refund of the amount of deposit with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 4. The State Commission, on consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents on record, came to the conclusion that there was no condition in the terms and conditions of the auction permitting further negotiations of the highest bids. Further, the two representatives deputed by Dr. (Smt) Karuna Mishra were authorised only to participate in the auction proceedings and no more. The petitioner did not produce any evidence before the District Forum that any communication had been addressed to the complainant (Green Field School) through its Manager (Dr (Smt) Karuna Mishra) to enhance the highest bids already made by the representatives. Noticing the delay between the date of auction (24.01.2000) and the date of the alleged letter of allotment (06.06.2000) accepting the allegedly escalated price of Rs.10.10 lakh for each hall, the State Commission also concluded that the whole process was mala fide and the inordinate delay in communicating the allotment clearly suggested some under-hand exercise by unscrupulous officials of the petitioner/ Parishad. The State Commission further noticed that before cancelling the auction proceedings and forfeiting the amount of Rs.2 lakh deposited by the complainant, the petitioner/Parishad did not issue any show cause notice to the complainant. Finally, on perusal of the documents on record, the State Commission found that though it was the Commissioner of the Parishad/Housing Board who was required to decide in the case of a dispute, the letter of allotment dated 06.06.2000 did not reflect that the matter has been placed before the Commissioner and it also appeared that the Estate Officer took the decision at his own level some eleven months after the date of auction to cancel the proceedings and forfeit the amount deposited. In view of these reasons, the State Commission confirmed the finding of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners and dismissed their appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Vishnu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners/Parishad and Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant as Caveator and considered the evidence and documents on record. 6. The main ground urged by Mr. Sharma is that the complainant is not a onsumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short, he Act because the case involved sale of immovable property and did not include any erviceby the petitioners as defined in section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. Whether any erviceis involved in an auction sale of this nature was examined by this Commission in RP no. 4539 of 2010 filed by the same petitioner viz., U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad: U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Sri Shiv Shankar Lal Shukla. In this case, letter no. 738/9 1-97-30 D.A/97 Aavas Section 1 dated 06.02.1997 of the Government of UP was relied upon. This letter, being a public document of direct relevance to the subject under examination in this case too, is reproduced below: rom Akhand Pratap Singh Principal Secretary Government of U.P. To, 1. Housing Commissioner, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 104, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow. 2. Vice-Chairma of All Development Authorities, Uttar Pradesh. Awas Anubhag 1 Lucknow: 6 February 1997 Subject: Procedure to be adopted after determining the reserved price for a Public Auction of the properties of Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities. Sir, Despite predetermining the reserved price for auction of a property belonging to Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities, reports of several incidents have been received by the Government that despite receiving bids/tender valued higher than the reserved price, some officers either delay in giving approval to the auction proceedings on one pretext or the other OR include the said property in the next auction proceeding due to personal reasons and later they express their opinion to the effect that the bid/offer received in the later auction was higher than the bid /offer received in the earlier proceedings and, therefore, it shall not be in the interest of the organisation to approve the bid/ offer. On the contrary, after analysis of these incidents, these arguments have been found to be incorrect and against the principles of natural justice. A fair competition in a Public Auction can be seen only if the highest bidder gets the property in question and it is quite unfair to promote the culture where the highest bidder, despite quoting the higher bid, is looking for the mercy of the discretionary powers of a particular Authority. Therefore, with a view to stop such kind of practice and to bring transparency in the auction proceedings and to crack down on corruption in the process, I have been directed to say that it is irrelevant to dispose of any property against a value quoted below the reserved price on the one hand and on the other hand no officer is having right/ power to use discretionary power in rejecting a bid valued higher than the reserved price for the property. It does not mean that the Authority has no power to interfere in those Auction proceedings where it is suspected that the bidders are either working in connivance of each or some dummy bidders are participating in the auction proceedings. In such situations, a decision should be taken within a day after the auction was held, while indicating the reasons to do so. Therefore, please ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid guidelines in the all future public auction proceedings. Yours faithfully, Akhand Pratap Singh Principal Secretary 7. The main point highlighted in the above-mentioned Government letter was that a property put up on auction by public a authority (like the petitioner) must not be disposed of at a price lower than the reserved price and in case of suspicion regarding the highest bid, the authority concerned must take a decision or whether to accept the bid or not within one day after the auction and indicate the reasons for non-acceptance of the highest bid. The Government letter enjoins strict compliance of these instructions. 8. In this case, as already noticed by the State Commission, the terms and conditions of the auction did not permit any negotiations to enhance the highest bids already received. The petitioners have not pleaded that there was rigging of the bids in collusion with other bidders. Therefore, it is to be held that the bids made by the complainant representatives were the highest bid received in the public auction in question and there was no ground for seeking further enhancement of the bid prices. The entire set of activities thereafter, including procuring the two letters from the two representatives of the complainant raising each bid to Rs.10.10 lakh, was nothing but gross dministrative misfeasance if not a fraudulent act. Further, the delay on the part of the petitioner in writing the alleged letter dated 06.06.2000 after the auction held on 24.01.2000 was clearly in complete violation of the Government instructions referred to above which required that even in such cases where there were doubts about the genuineness of the highest bid, the decision to accept or reject the highest bid must be taken within one day after holding the auction. As rightly observed by the State Commission, this delay clearly smacked of mala fide practice of some unscrupulous officials of the Parishad. 9. Further, as noticed in the order of this Commission dated 1st August 2011 in RP No. 4539 of 2010, this complaint pertains to deficiency in service in rejecting the highest bids of the respondent/complainant and manipulating the matters so as to procure unauthorised communications from the two officials of the complainant purporting to enhance the highest bids. As a result, the process of deciding on the bids took over four months as against the time limit of one day permitted by the Government in such a situation. Further, deficiency in ervicealso lay in cancelling the auction proceedings and rejecting the highest bids of the complainant without issuing a show cause notice as this was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, while the auction did not involve any evelopmentor similar ervicebeing provided by the petitioners, it did involve a whole range of dministrative servicesin conducting the auction process and finally conveying the acceptance/ rejection of the bids in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction and the specific directions in the Government letter dated 06.02.1997, reproduced above. 10. Thus, no ground has been made out in the revision petition or in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners to warrant interference with the well-founded and well-reasoned order of the State Commission under section 21(b) of the Act. We may also notice that according to the learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator, the entire amount awarded by the District Forum (including interest) has already been paid by the petitioners to the respondent/ complainant. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.