Chandigarh, July 12 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a plea from a Mohali resident who failed to deposit the requisite amount after successfully winning the bid in an auction of a plot in Sector 65, Mohali. The petitioner, Iqbal Singh, had approached the HC demanding that the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) be directed to remove or relocate the overhead high-voltage electricity wires and to remove the unauthorised car shed/structure obstructing the petitioner's allotted residential plot. A further direction was sought to restrain GMADA from re-auctioning the disputed plot or creating any third-party rights. The petitioner submitted that he had participated in the e-auction of the residential plot in Sector 65, Mohali, measuring 424.33 square metres, conducted on October 29, 2024, and the last date to deposit the requisite amount of Rs.64.65 lakh was November 18. The petitioner kept the money in his bank account but did not deposit the same because it was found that there were overhead wires on the plot. Hence, GMADA was requested to remove the wires. "..when there are electricity wires over the plot, there is no use of paying the amount unless the same are removed," he argued, adding that the petition has been filed seeking removal of the wires and restraint on the re-auction of the plot and not to create any third-party rights. GMADA told the court that the petitioner had no vested right to file the petition as he failed to deposit the requisite amount by the assigned date. The petitioner has forfeited his right to get the allotment of the plot. Neither any letter of intent nor any allotment letter was ever issued to him, the court was told. The court observed that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was the highest bidder at the time of the auction, but the necessary amount was not deposited by the stipulated date. Hence, GMADA did not issue any allotment letter. "Primarily, in the present petition, the relief claimed is for removal of electricity wires over the residential plot. However, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has got no vested right because there is no legal right vested with the petitioner since, admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the requisite amount and no allotment has been made in favour of the petitioner," it said, adding that in view of this, no ground is made out for the court's intervention....