JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       This order shall decide three Revision Petitions by a common judgment.  The Respondents/complainants, namely; Raju Sen in Revision Petition No. 1754 of 2014, Sawarmal and Suresh Kumar Sharma in Revision Petition No.1817 of 2014 and Suresh Kumar Sharma in Revision Petition No. 1818 of 2014 did not appear despite service and after accepting the litigation charges. The complainants/respondents named above, had filed the complaints before the District Forum.  The District Forum allowed the complaints and the State Commission dismissed the appeals in limine.

2.       Aggrieved by that order, all the three set of complainants named above have filed the three separate revision petitions.  Although the facts and Law involved there, is similar and the case will be decided by a common judgment, yet, we are trying to give separate facts of each case.

3.       In all the three cases the above mentioned OPs made an attempt to purchase the flats through auction.  In the case of Raju Sen, the complainant applied for a residential plot under the scheme of Kudi Bhagtasani in which the rate of bid was announced at Rs. 12,000/- per meter initially.  The said rate was proposed in respect of Residential PLOT No. 8-M-146 and the area was 81.60 Sq. meter.  The complainant gave the bid at the rate of Rs. 14,700/- at the initial stage and it was accepted by the petitioner/board and his name was put in the auction.

4.       In the case of Sawarmal & Anr., the rate of bid was to start at Rs. 11,000/- per sq. meter initially.  The said rate was proposed in respect of Residential PLOT No. 8-J-44 and the area was 55 Sq. meter.  The complainant proposed the rate of Rs. 15,601/- per sq. meter at the initial stage and it was accepted by the petitioner/board and his name was put in the auction.

5.       In the case of Suresh Kumar Sharma, the rate of bid was to start at Rs. 12,000/- per sq. meter initially.  The said rate was proposed in respect of Residential PLOT No. 8-J-44 and the area was 76.17 Sq. meter.  The complainant proposed the rate at Rs. 15,046/- per sq. meter at the initial stage and it was accepted by the petitioner/board and his name was cleared in the auction.

6.       This happened in the year 2007.   On 10.09.2012, the Rajasthan Housing Board granted approval/rejection of highest bids received through sealed bid proposals on 10.09.2012.

7.       On 28.09.2012, the petitioner/board vide order dated 28.09.2012, rejected the bids received through sealed proposals for plots of all the complainants.  Several other plots belonging to other persons were also cancelled.  On 16.01.2013, cheques were sent to all the complainants.  8.       Aggrieved by that, the complaints were filed before the District Forum.  The District Forum vide its order dated 31.07.2013 in each of the complaint directed the OPs/petitioners to allot auction residential plots stated above without any additional charges and interest on the rate, within one month from the date of judgment and the complainants were to deposit the balance amount as per rules and physical possession of the plots was to be given to them.  Compensation of      Rs. 5,000/- and costs of the case in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- each was imposed upon the petitioners.  The State Commission dismissed the appeals and costs of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioners.

9.       We have heard the counsel for the petitioners.  We have perused the advertisements.  We have perused the terms and conditions of the auction.  This is a case of simple auction.  This case is fully covered within the observations made by the Apex Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. V. Amarjeet Singh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660.  In this case, the auction was on as is where is basis.  In above cited authority the Supreme Court was pleased to hold:-

“Before bidding in the auction, he knows or is in a position to ascertain, the condition and situation of the site. He knows about the existence or lack of amenities. The auction is on `as is where  17is basis'. With such knowledge, he participates in the auction and offers a particular bid. There is no compulsion that he should offer a particular price. When the sites auctioned are existing sites, without any assurance/representation relating to amenities, there is no question of deficiency of service or denial of service. Where the bidder has a choice and option in regard to the site and price and when there is no assurance of any facility or amenity, the question of the owner of the site becoming a service provider, does not arise.”

“With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted from sites to be `formed'), the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a `trader' or `service provider' and the grievance does not relate to any matter in regard which a complaint can be filed. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the fora under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites.”

It was further held:-

“a lessee/successful bidder cannot seek reschduling of the instalments of premium or postponement of accrual of the interest payable as per the Chandigarh Leasehold Sites and  Building Rules, 1973 ( the Leasehold Rules)”.

There is no inkling on the record that any assurance/representation relating to amenities was made by the Board in these cases.

10.     Again office order dated 14.08.2007 puts a condition that the petitioner/board will reserve its right to accept and cancel the bid at any time without pointing out any reason.  The plots of the complainants were cancelled under the power vested under that provision.  It was also argued that the price of the adjacent plots is too high and the OPs did not want any pick and choose.

11.     We have received the record from the lower Fora and perused the same.  Counsel for the petitioners has submitted the legible/typed copy of affidavit.

12.     Under these circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the orders passed by the Fora below are not legally tenable.  We set aside the same, accept the Revision Petition and dismiss the complaints.  However, the complainants can get the redressal for their grievances before the appropriate Court.  They can also seek help from the authority reported in “Lakshmi Engineering Works V. P.S.G. Industrial Institute” [AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1428]” so far as the question of limitation is concerned.

13.  All the three Revision Petitions stand disposed of.