Sale Pursuant For Public Auction Allocate Listening To The Third Parties: K Kumara Gupta V Sri Markandeya And Sri Omkareshwara Temple

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
18/02/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR SHAH AND JUSTICE MS. BV NAGRATHNA

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: K. KUMARA GUPTA
RESPONDENT: SRI MARKENDEYA TEMPLE AND SRI OMKARESHWAR TEMPLE

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court stated that a public auction sale cannot be cast aside based on a later proposal made by third parties.

OVERVIEW

1. The facts of the case revolves around a temple property sale which was held on June 24, 1998, with 45 persons who bid for the same.
2. The winning bidder was determined to be K. Kumara Gupta. On December 31, 1998, a sale deed was also issued to him that proved to be beneficial. The High court Judge mandated a re-auction by allocating the stated auction/sale after admitting a writ petition brought by L. Kantha Rao (A women who had not participated in the auction).
3. It was also claimed that the Temple Trust made no objections during the bidding or even after the bidding until the learned Chief Judge's order/judgment dated 02.02.2018.
4. It was argued that the Temple's Executive Officer, who had been familiar with the current proceedings, such as the public auction, and after getting the full and cumulative consideration, wouldn't have questioned the learned Single Judge's judgement and order, which was delivered on 02.02.2018 at a final stage, nearly twenty years after the sale deed was executed.
5. The submission of a plea by the Temple Trust before the Division Bench against the judgement and order of 02.02.2018 without any accusation.
6. Seeking to make the foregoing arguments, it is argued that the Division Bench of the High Court made a terrible mistake in thwarting and disregarding the sale in pursuit of the plaintiff after a period of 23 years, whenever the plaintiff had compensated the whole deal consideration on December 30, 1998, and was placed in ownership on the sale deed's operation. It is argued that the High Court's Division Bench did not adequately understand the fact that the sale was approved on behalf of the plaintiff after permission by the Endowments Department's competent authority.
7. The petitioner (Kumara Gupta) was deemed to be the highest bidder in a public auction in which 45 people were involved, and then the sale was verified in his benefit and the sale deed was produced, according to the Apex Court bench.

ISSUES

Whether the sale pursuant to public auction be set aside on behalf of any offer made by the third parties?

LEGAL PROVISION

State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors,

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

1. The supreme court clearly stated that, except the scenarios where it was discovered that there was any kind of substance abnormality and illegal act in retaining the public auction and perhaps the auction was irrevocably damaged by any forgery or collusion, the plaintiff was discovered to be the winning bidder in a public auction in which 45 individuals had taken part, and henceforth when the sale was validated in his behalf and even the sale deed was implemented, it is not open to set aside the sale deed.
2. The court also noted that there had been no evidence that the company's value in 1998 was considerably higher, and that the highest offer was for a lower price than the land's true value.
3. While overturning the High Court's order, the bench cited the decision in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., , which advised High Courts to be more attentive, watchful, and careful while hearing writ petitions ostensibly brought in the public interest.
4. In the said judgement, the court stated and held that: Courts should motivate legitimate and bona fide PILs while successfully discouraging and curbing PILs filed for ulterior motives and even the courts.
5. Courts should prima facie confirm the plaintiff's bona fides before hosting a PIL, Courts ought to be prima facie comfortable concerning the accuracy of the petition's components before captivating a PIL and Courts should be completely happy that significant evidence exists to support the plea.
6. The Courts must guarantee that applications submitted by prats for unnecessary and ulterior motives are prohibited by charging exceptional fees or using other innovative approaches to curb bogus applications and petitions submitted for external reasons.
7. The Courts must guarantee that applications submitted by prats for unnecessary and ulterior motives are prohibited by charging exceptional fees or using other innovative approaches to curb bogus applications and petitions submitted for external reasons.

CONCLUSION

The court stated that unless there were charges of deception, conspiracy, collusion, or any other serious abnormality or criminality, the highest bid obtained in the public auction may be considered as a fair market value under normal conditions. Otherwise, the panel of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said, there would be no sanctity to a public auction.