[2025:RJ-JP:35319] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12368/2011 Mahavir Prasad Jangid S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, aged 52 years , Resident of Piparali Road, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Development, Housing and Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Municipal Council, Sikar through Commissioner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. Laxmi Kant JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent No.2 to re-calculate the bid amount for an area of 84.6 Square Yards instead of 120 Square Yards and thereafter issue a fresh demand notice to the petitioner and accept the balance amount. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent issued a common auction for auctioning certain shops of the Municipal Council, Sikar. Counsel submits that for participating in the auction proceedings for the shops situated in the western side of B-Block Jatiya Market, Sikar measuring 120 Square Yards, the petitioner auctioned the bid and being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and he was called upon to deposit the 1/4th amount of [2025:RJ-JP:35319] (2 of 4) [CW-12368/2011] the total auction amount. Counsel submits that the petitioner deposited 1/4th amount but when the site was measured actually, the area of the shop was found to be 84.6 Square Yards instead of 120 square yards. Counsel submits that the petitioner received a notice from the respondents on 21.01.2011 wherein the respondents have admitted that the measurement of the shop is 111 Square Yards. Therefore, he was called upon to deposit the balance amount accordingly. Counsel submits that a note was appended by the petitioner to re-measure the area of the allotted shop and re-calculate the bid amount as per the re-measurement. Counsel submits that instead of doing so, the respondents have forfeited the earnest money of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount as per the size re-measured by the respondent i.e. 111 Square Yards, therefore appropriate direction be issued to the respondents accordingly. In alternative, he submits that if the respondents are not willing to accept the same then a direction be issued to the respondents to refund the earnest money along with interest to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the condition No. 10 of the auction notice, the shop would be allotted to the auction bidder on the basis of “as it is where it is”. Counsel submits that when the shop was re-measured, it was found that the area of the shop was 86.4 square yards but by adding areas of the balcony etc. the size of the shop came around 111 Square Yards and accordingly, a notice was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount for 111 Square Yards within a [2025:RJ-JP:35319] (3 of 4) [CW-12368/2011] period of thirty days failing which his offered auction would be cancelled. Counsel submits that inspite of receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has failed to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time, hence under these circumstances, the auction was cancelled vide order dated 03.08.2011 and the amount of the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was forfeited. Hence under these circumstances, the respondents have not caused any illegality in doing so, thus interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the auction notice indicates that the size of the auction shop was 120 Square Yards but when it was actual re- measured, found that the size of the shop was 84.6 Square Yards. It appears that the respondents have added the part of the balcony in the same and by adding part of the balcony the size of the shop came around 111 Square Yards. It appears that on doing so, the respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner for depositing the balance amount as per the aforesaid measurement i.e. 111 Square Yards. 6. Perusal of the aforesaid notices indicates that a note was appended by the petitioner to re-measure the actual size of the allotted shop and again re-calculate the amount. It appears that no heed was paid by the respondents and the auction bidding notice was cancelled and the earnest money of the petitioner was forfeited by the respondents vide order dated 03.08.2011. 7. This Court finds no mistake on the part of the petitioner, as the petitioner was informed that the auction notice pertains to the [2025:RJ-JP:35319] (4 of 4) [CW-12368/2011] shop measuring 120 Square Yards, but when it was actually measured, the size of the shop was found to be only 84.6 square yards. It appears that subsequently, the area of the balcony was added and by doing so, the area was increased to 111 Square Yards. 8. This fact is not in dispute that by doing so, the respondents have sent a notice to the petitioner to deposit the balance amount but the petitioner has not done and insisted the respondents to remeasure the area of the allotted shop. Under such circumstances, the respondents have cancelled the auction and forfeited the amount deposited by the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, the respondents, at such a belated stage, cannot be allowed to ask from the petitioner about the payment of balance amount, as per the calculation of 111 Square Yards, as the auction itself has been cancelled by the respondents more than fourteen years back but at the same time, the petitioner cannot be allowed to make sufferer for no fault of his own. Thus a direction is issued to the respondents to refund the earnest money of the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. to the petitioner forthwith from the date of deposition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition as well as the stay application stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/115