JUDGMENT
1. One V.R. Narasimha Murthy-appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16340 of 1999, dated 15-12-2000. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits the discretion was exercised in favour of respondent 1 considering to be a mandate of this Court and the time was extended and delay was condoned without applying mind. The same is liable to be set aside as the discretion so exercised is not judicious one and the order of the Division Bench dated 28-6-2001 directing the Corporation to reconsider and decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant, needs no interference.
2. The learned Counsel for the first respondent-petitioner, Harish Kumar, submits that the appellant had also participated in the auction of LPG distributorship in pursuance of the notification dated 20-2-1999 and was unsuccessful bidder. The first respondent who was the highest bidder had to deposit the remaining amount on or before 30-3-1999. On account of illness, he could not deposit the balance amount in time and sought for extension of time but his representation was rejected. Thereafter he filed a writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to consider the representation for extension of time in the light of observations made therein, to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The learned Counsel further submits that he was asked to compensate by paying interest on the default amount. Interest was paid. The letter of indent dated 14-2-2001 was issued subject to the order of the Supreme Court. Thereafter respondent 1 has spent substantial amount but on account of Division Bench order dated 28-6-2001, he has been deprived to start his business. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is within the discretion of the Corporation. This discretion has rightly been exercised as per Clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the auction. Further, it is also submitted that the appellant who is an unsuccessful bidder who has not challenged the auction dated 17-3-1999 at initial stage, now has no locus standi to
challenge. The appellant has no right to be heard by the Corporation as directed by the Division Bench in its order dated 28-6-2001 and therefore the order is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant in rejoinder submits that the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any controversy arising out of this auction is with the Delhi High Court and as such the writ itself is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, the discretion to forfeit his right and money are within the jurisdiction of the Corporation.
4. Sri Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, submitted that it is the discretion of Corporation to extend the time and also to forfeit money. He also submits that they have made enquiry in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench and on enquiry it was found that the first respondent was not admitted to Hospital as per the letter dated 6-9-2001 and the enquiry is still under progress. The Corporation will decide the enquiry after hearing the 1st respondent/petitioner, Harish Kumar independently in accordance with law.
5. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Harish Kumar has filed some documents showing that actually he was ill but due to some mistake name of the hospital was not mentioned. He further submits that, otherwise, the appeal itself is not maintainable as the appellant has not challenged the same at the initial stage before the Delhi High Court or in this Court as argued, and now, he cannot challenge the same and continue his distributorship in the garb of non-finalising the distributorship as per the auction.
6. Mr. Reddy submits that Corporation will also consider the averments of the petitioner to find out whether he actually fell ill or not. And there was any sufficient reason to extend the time or not without being influenced by the observation of this Court passed in the writ petition.
7. As the facts culled out, the grant of LPG distributorship under discretionary quota has been quashed by Delhi High Court in public interest litigation on 29-8-1997, It was also observed in subsequent order that if dealership has not been taken over by the Corporation it can be taken over on 15-12-1998 and disposed of by public auction in terms of directions dated 29-8-1997 read with directions dated 11-9-1998, on or before 31-3-1999. The new dealership shall be put in possession on or before 1-4-1999 in pursuance of fresh auction that took place on 17-3-1999 but for one reason or the other, it has not been finalised. Learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that they have allowed temporary distribution and it is to be continued with Company guidelines till 30-9-1999 or till finalisation of the auction, whichever is earlier.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Now, as far as the argument that Delhi High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter arising out of this auction is concerned, even assuming but not admitting then also the writ appeal filed by the appellant itself is not maintainable. And the appellant cannot take advantage of the order of the Division Bench dated 28-6-2001. Be that as it may, in the facts of the given case once the unsuccessful bidder has not challenged the selection of the bid held in pursuance of Delhi High Court order on 17-3-1999, in our opinion he cannot challenge the same at this stage. As per Clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the auction, in case of default in payment by the highest bidder, it will be at the discretion of the Corporation to forfeit his right or the money or to extend the time as the case may be. And that being an independent issue between the Corporation and the highest bidder no third person has a right to be heard. Therefore, in our view, the appellant has no right to challenge and to take part in the enquiry. And he cannot take advantage of the observation in the earlier order dated 28-6-2001. This Court cannot go into the question of facts, which needs investigation. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to direct respondent 1-Harish Kumar to appear on 13-9-2001 before the authorities concerned and the Corporation will consider the factual situation after giving opportunity to 1st respendent-petitioner, Harish Kumar to establish and to whether he was ill during the period and whether time can be extended by exercising the discretion in the facts of the given case afresh independently at the earliest.
10. In case it is found that the extension cannot be granted while exercising discretion, a fresh auction should be held and the appellant and the 1st respondent can participate in the auction. But, we make it clear that the appellant, whose grant has been cancelled by the Delhi High Court on 29-8-1997 and is an unsuccessful bidder of the auction held on 17-3-1999 has been continued with the distributorship without any authority even though it was cancelled. However, the letter dated 28-3-2001 by Bharat Petroleum reveals that earlier he was allowed distributorship till 31-3-2001 vide reference to letter dated 27-9-2000 and in view of the order in writ appeal the same was extended and allowed temporary distributorship till 30-9-2001, but shall not continue dealership if, for any reason, the auction is not finalised and the same shall be taken over by the Corporation. In any case the appellant will have no right to continue the dealership after 30-9-2001. The Corporation will start functioning as dealer on its own for general public.
As discussed above, the unsuccessful bidder-appellant has no locus standi and the writ appeal filed by him is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the Corporation will decide the issue exercising its discretion, at the earliest, in accordance with law as stated above.
Costs of the appeal made easy.