Illegal Auction Sale By Public Authority Can Be Set Aside Under Article 226; Writ Court Not Bound By Order 21 Rule 90 CPC : Supreme Court

Certainly! The Supreme Court of India has made significant pronouncements regarding the legality of auction sales conducted by public authorities and the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Here’s an article summarizing the key points:

Introduction:
The Supreme Court has clarified the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning the setting aside of auction sales conducted by public authorities. The Court’s ruling underscores the significance of Article 226 in ensuring justice and fairness in administrative actions, particularly in matters relating to property auctions.

Key Points from the Judgment:

1. Authority of Article 226: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs, including writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, to enforce fundamental rights and for other purposes.
2. Setting Aside Auction Sales: The Court emphasized that if an auction sale conducted by a public authority is found to be illegal or conducted in violation of statutory provisions, the High Court has the authority to set aside such sales through its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
3. Non-binding Nature of CPC Rule 90: The judgment clarified that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs setting aside of sale in execution of decrees, do not limit the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The writ court is not bound by procedural rules of CPC when exercising its constitutional powers to provide equitable relief.
4. Judicial Review and Fairness: The Court highlighted the importance of judicial review in safeguarding the rights of parties affected by auction sales, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles in administrative actions involving dispossession of property rights.
5. Case Specifics: The ruling was made in the context of a specific case where the legality of an auction sale by a public authority was challenged on grounds of procedural irregularities and violation of statutory provisions.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the expansive powers of the High Courts under Article 226 to intervene in cases involving auction sales conducted by public authorities. It affirms the principle that procedural rules such as those under CPC do not restrict the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts to provide effective remedies where administrative actions are found to be illegal or unjust.

This article highlights the Court’s stance on balancing administrative efficiency with the protection of individual rights through robust judicial oversight, particularly in matters concerning property rights and auction sales conducted by public authorities.