Mohammad Haroon v. UOI &Ors

ANIL KUMAR, J. 'k'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 8th January, 2010. + W.P.(C).No.10617/2006 Mohd.Haroon ..... PETITIONER Through:Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navneet Panwar and Ms. Tani Sudan, Advocates. Versus Union of India and Another .... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent no.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES in the Digest? Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner who is an auction purchaser has sought quashing of the entire auction for the lot numbers 39 and 59 comprising 5 containers of HMS scrap held on 15.6.2005 and consequently refund of a sum of Rs.19,17,760/- alongwith interest and Rs.2,20,814/- along with interest on account of penalty and ground rent charges till 31st March, 2006 and another amount of Rs.2,70,000/- paid by petitioner to the transporters whose trucks are lying at the bonded area since 3rd April, 2006. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner is in the business of trading in metal scrap in the name of M/s. Adil Tin Scrap Store, 462, Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi- 110035. On 30.5.2005, respondent No.2 had published the auction notice dated 15.6.2005 (1/2005-2006) in the leading newspapers proposing to dispose of different materials including HMS contained in 30 containers by public auction on "As is where is" basis. In the auction notice neither the reserve price nor weight nor quantity was mentioned. 3. Pursuant to the auction notice petitioner paid the entry fee of Rs.250/- and also deposited a refundable security of Rs.20,000/- for participating in the auction. The dates of inspection of material at ICD, Tughlakabad were fixed on 10th, 13th and 14th June, 2005. 4. The petitioner contended that during the course of auction while inviting bids for the lots numbered at serial numbers 39 and 59 it was declared orally by the officials of the respondent no.2 that lot number 39 contained 4 containers and lot No.59 contained one container having approximately 19 tones of HMS scrap per container. Assertion of the petitioner is that relying on the representations and the details given by the respondent the petitioner formulated his bid and quoted an amount of Rs.15,10,000/- for lot no.39 and Rs.34,000/- for lot no.59. The bid of the petitioner was accepted and on acceptance of his bid petitioner tendered the advance of 30% amounting to Rs.4,55,000/-. 5. According to the petitioner the respondents failed to complete the necessary formalities and hand over the goods to the petitioner entailing repudiation of the agreement and, therefore, a letter dated 11.8.2005 was sent to refund the part consideration already tendered by the petitioner. However, all the legitimate demands of the petitioner were thwarted by the officers of the respondent who being aware of the discrepancies in auction, directed the petitioner to desist from insisting on cancellation of auction and threatened with forfeiture of advance amount tendered by him. Consequently in order to salvage the situation and to minimize the loses the petitioner instead of seeking repudiation paid the balance payment within the extended time and also sought waiver of penal interest and ground rent and sent letter dated 18.10.2005. 6. The petitioner paid the entire amount, however, only 50% waiver of ground rent and penal interest was granted by the respondent and, therefore, petitioner approached the respondents on 3rd April, 2006 for obtaining delivery of goods and placed the trucks for transportation. When three containers bearing Nos.GATU 0409488, CPSU 1602659 and CPSU 5931249 were de-stuffed and goods were loaded on to the trucks the weight appeared to be less and on weighing the goods it transpired that the goods were far short of the quantity represented to him at the time of auction by the respondent. The thr